Those who say unvalidated (never having been validated) is "not a word" are simply being prescriptive, outdated, and pedantic. It's been used increasingly over the past century (the chart represents a total of 34,000 instances in print).
I don't see any problem at all with the word, which is clearly distinguishable from invalidated (having been been checked and failed validation). If OP wishes to avoid unfounded allegations of illiteracy though, he might wish to consider unverified as a less contentious alternative.
Answer from FumbleFingers on Stack ExchangeThose who say unvalidated (never having been validated) is "not a word" are simply being prescriptive, outdated, and pedantic. It's been used increasingly over the past century (the chart represents a total of 34,000 instances in print).
I don't see any problem at all with the word, which is clearly distinguishable from invalidated (having been been checked and failed validation). If OP wishes to avoid unfounded allegations of illiteracy though, he might wish to consider unverified as a less contentious alternative.
On the one hand, I'd say that "unvalidated" fills your described need just fine.
On the other hand, in the interest of avoiding potential auditory or visual confusion between "invalidated" and "unvalidated", I'd suggest going with "non-validated" or "not yet validated".
Although non-valid and invalid have the same meaning semantically, I tend to interpret them with a subtle difference.
The difference is the same as that between words like "not useful" and "useless". Calling something "useless" seems to me like a more blatant/harsh way of negating its usefulness than calling something "not useful".
Similarly, I tend to interpret "non-valid" as simply negating the validity of the subject (less intense) and "invalid" as harshly specifying that something is invalid (more intense).
While there would be no book or rule stating this kind of a difference, I believe that our brain inadvertently picks up this kind of cognizance by reading text and observing the minute difference in ways these words are used.
It would be interesting to know if others also feel the same way.
This is an intriguing question. My experience is much like satnam's, only sort of the opposite. The two terms have such similar meanings that dictionaries often use one term to describe the other. There does seem to be a subtle difference in actual usage that I can't find formally documented, and it somewhat relates to a matter of degree. Where our experience differs is that I think of non-valid as the more "intense" term, to use the same adjective. Perhaps it's very situation-specific. Here's my crude attempt to characterize it.
"Invalid" seems to be used to refer to something that is not currently valid or that a reasonable person might mistake for valid, whereas "non-valid" seems to be used to refer to something that under no circumstances could ever be valid. Some examples:
- An invalid license could be an expired license. It was previously valid and could be made valid again via renewal. A non-valid license could be a foreign license that can never be valid.
- An invalid credit card might refer to one that used to be valid but has been cancelled or expired. A non-valid credit card might refer to a credit card that is not one of the brands the merchant accepts.
When a term for validity is applied to an assumption or argument, "invalid" seems to be reserved for incorrect ones a reasonable person might mistakenly make, while "non-valid", if it was used in that context, would cover cases more not valid.
For example, in a serious discussion or debate, one person uses an assumption or argument that seems reasonable on the surface but can be demonstrated to be incorrect. That would typically be referred to as "invalid". Use of "non-valid" would more likely be applied to a more obviously bad assumption or argument where the person making it is expected to know better.
Another example: "Why is John taller than Bob?" "Because Tuesday." People wouldn't be likely to talk about the "validity" of such a response because the argument is so far away from being valid that validity is irrelevant. But I suspect that if someone was to apply "invalid" or "non-valid" to it, the terms would elicit different reactions. "Invalid" would seem so misapplied that people would assume it was sarcasm, even though it is technically true. "Non-valid" would just sound odd, perhaps leading people to wonder if it was some kind of clinical observation rather than off-the-cuff commentary about the content.
So I am also curious to see other responses to the question.
A more straight forward answer. For those who still don't know what on earth is "validation group".
Usage for @Valid Validation
Controller:
@RequestMapping(value = "createAccount")
public String stepOne(@Valid Account account) {...}
Form object:
public class Account {
@NotBlank
private String username;
@Email
@NotBlank
private String email;
}
Usage for @Validated Validation Group
Source: http://blog.codeleak.pl/2014/08/validation-groups-in-spring-mvc.html
Controller:
@RequestMapping(value = "stepOne")
public String stepOne(@Validated(Account.ValidationStepOne.class) Account account) {...}
@RequestMapping(value = "stepTwo")
public String stepTwo(@Validated(Account.ValidationStepTwo.class) Account account) {...}
Form object:
public class Account {
@NotBlank(groups = {ValidationStepOne.class})
private String username;
@Email(groups = {ValidationStepOne.class})
@NotBlank(groups = {ValidationStepOne.class})
private String email;
@NotBlank(groups = {ValidationStepTwo.class})
@StrongPassword(groups = {ValidationStepTwo.class})
private String password;
@NotBlank(groups = {ValidationStepTwo.class})
private String confirmedPassword;
}
As you quoted from the documentation, @Validated was added to support "validation groups", i.e. group of fields in the validated bean. This can be used in multi step forms where you may validate name, email, etc.. in first step and then other fields in following step(s).
The reason why this wasn't added into @Valid annotation is because that it is standardized using the java community process (JSR-303), which takes time and Spring developers wanted to allow people to use this functionality sooner.
Go to this jira ticket to see how the annotation came into existence.