Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • Thanks for the response! My only concern with that approach is possible duplication / name clash of two different validators. Is there some way to effectively eliminate that? Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 3:47
  • Yeah, it's called a compiler. These are class names not simply strings. Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 4:28
  • Yeah, well if these 'identifiers' are class names this question would make no sense. It is clearly stated that v1 would be an id and I am making the case for these id's being in a human-understandable format. Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 7:52
  • I can't imagine any descriptive validator name clashing, but I'm not aware of the domain you are working in so I might be wrong. You might end up with some rather long names to guarantee 'uniqueness' but as long as those names are descriptive length should rarely be an issue. Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 7:54
  • Thanks for the responses. Are there any design related flaws with this approach (i.e. maintaining validators in the config) or is there any better,alternative way to achieve the same? Commented Aug 1, 2016 at 19:17