-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optionally enforce required elements in XSDs #263
Optionally enforce required elements in XSDs #263
Conversation
|
* @since 2.1.0 | ||
*/ | ||
@Parameter( defaultValue = "true") | ||
private boolean areMandatoryElementsNotEnforced; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This does not look very usual to have a boolean property starting with is
or are
.
Usually, the getters are written isXxx
but the field is most often named without the is
/are
prefix.
I would propose to invert it and name it enforceMandatoryElements
and default it to false
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can rename but the default should be to enforce mandatory elements. The POM case is really an unusual edge case IMHO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I may have missed something, but the current default value is true
for not enforcing mandatory elements. I'm fine with changing the default value though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The javadoc should be changed accordingly if the default value is to be changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, my bad. I will think again about defaults.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Lets start with the default being no enforcement for backwards-compatibility.
leave out negation
This closes #162