On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>
...
>> So I was wondering if:
>>
>> (a) There is already a natural place for hooking this in (by adding a
>> filter?)
>
> It seems like the right approach is to utilize a method-level interceptor
> because that is when the method parameter values will be available to be
> validated e.g. with some AOP.
Yes, this is probably the way to go.
> The resource-level filters of Jersey do not currently have available the
> method parameter values. The reason being is that a filter could modify some
> of the HTTP request before the method parameter values are extracted from
> the request.
Ok.
...
> How is 303 validation performed?
>
> The 311 EG did look at 303 but concluded that there was nothing specific
> required w.r.t to integration of the two specs.
Right: I don't think there has to be anything, since validation is
about as simple as it gets. You need to construct a Validator using
the usual factory-factory-factory-provider pattern (ok maybe a few
factories less than that), but then just call
"Validator.validate(beanToValidate)" and get a set of typed
ConstraintViolation objects. So that's easily pluggable.
Construction of validators seems bit messy, with
"Validation.buildDefaultValidatorFactory", but I may just be missing a
bit there. It does use regular services introspection at some point.
I have been trying to figure out how to prevent warnings wrt. not
having localized message resources, since for me those are
unnecessary.
-+ Tatu +-