From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Aug 10 10:45:14 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:45:14 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Introductions
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I'm very happy to report that the review ballot for the Bean Validation 2.0
JSR proposal was approved by the JCP EC with a great majority [1]!

This means we can get the ball rolling and work towards an early draft of
the new spec revision. As described in [2], the schedule is compact and
thus we'll need to choose the things to tackle wisely. The most important
issue will be making BV fit for Java 8, but we should be able to address
some other requests besides that.

The JSR proposal [3] contains a few potential ideas, but I'm very eager to
learn about your requests and demands from the field. Anything which helps
to further improve usefulness and/or usability of BV is worth discussing.

Note that you don't need to be on the expert group - although you are very
welcome to join [7] - in order to contribute. We also value any inputs by
non-members on this mailing list, the forum [4] and the issue tracker [5].
The JCP 2.10 rules (under which this JSR operates) foresee the role of
"Contributors" which has very low entry barriers.

Before diving into details though, let's have a quick round of
introductions so everyone knows who they are dealing with :)

Let me start:

I'm working as a software engineer in the Hibernate team at Red Hat and
took over the lead of the BV JSR from Emmanuel Bernard (who will remain
active in the EG). In the past I've been contributing to the 1.1 spec (e.g.
method validation), worked on the reference implementation Hibernate
Validator (which I'm also leading now) and the 1.1 TCK. Besides BV, I'm
working on several other projects in the Hibernate universe, most notably
Hibernate OGM (providing object mapping via JPA to NoSQL stores) and
Hibernate Search (providing full-text search for JPA domain models).

I'm looking forward very much to make BV 2.0 happen together with all of
you!

I'll soon start separate thread(s) on some first action items.

--Gunnar

PS: Please subscribe to the beanvalidation-dev list [6] if you haven't done
so yet; it's where discussions mostly will take place. To be sure I've sent
this mail in copy to all those who had signalled an interest in
contributing to BV 2.0 beforehand.

[1] https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5871
[2] http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/07/15/bean-validation-2-0-is-coming/
[3] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=380
[4] https://forum.hibernate.org/viewforum.php?f=26
[5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/projects/BVAL/summary
[6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/
[7] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/egnom?id=380
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160810/c7c7dfe8/attachment.html 

From gerhard.petracek at gmail.com  Wed Aug 10 11:13:24 2016
From: gerhard.petracek at gmail.com (Gerhard Petracek)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:13:24 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Introductions
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGJtJfE9k3Vyj4Mr7xavaWSHwqAE-SVqmkXJrXLcNsGNmCwijQ@mail.gmail.com>

great to hear that!

regards,
gerhard



2016-08-10 16:45 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm very happy to report that the review ballot for the Bean Validation
> 2.0 JSR proposal was approved by the JCP EC with a great majority [1]!
>
> This means we can get the ball rolling and work towards an early draft of
> the new spec revision. As described in [2], the schedule is compact and
> thus we'll need to choose the things to tackle wisely. The most important
> issue will be making BV fit for Java 8, but we should be able to address
> some other requests besides that.
>
> The JSR proposal [3] contains a few potential ideas, but I'm very eager to
> learn about your requests and demands from the field. Anything which helps
> to further improve usefulness and/or usability of BV is worth discussing.
>
> Note that you don't need to be on the expert group - although you are very
> welcome to join [7] - in order to contribute. We also value any inputs by
> non-members on this mailing list, the forum [4] and the issue tracker [5].
> The JCP 2.10 rules (under which this JSR operates) foresee the role of
> "Contributors" which has very low entry barriers.
>
> Before diving into details though, let's have a quick round of
> introductions so everyone knows who they are dealing with :)
>
> Let me start:
>
> I'm working as a software engineer in the Hibernate team at Red Hat and
> took over the lead of the BV JSR from Emmanuel Bernard (who will remain
> active in the EG). In the past I've been contributing to the 1.1 spec (e.g.
> method validation), worked on the reference implementation Hibernate
> Validator (which I'm also leading now) and the 1.1 TCK. Besides BV, I'm
> working on several other projects in the Hibernate universe, most notably
> Hibernate OGM (providing object mapping via JPA to NoSQL stores) and
> Hibernate Search (providing full-text search for JPA domain models).
>
> I'm looking forward very much to make BV 2.0 happen together with all of
> you!
>
> I'll soon start separate thread(s) on some first action items.
>
> --Gunnar
>
> PS: Please subscribe to the beanvalidation-dev list [6] if you haven't
> done so yet; it's where discussions mostly will take place. To be sure I've
> sent this mail in copy to all those who had signalled an interest in
> contributing to BV 2.0 beforehand.
>
> [1] https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5871
> [2] http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/07/15/bean-
> validation-2-0-is-coming/
> [3] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=380
> [4] https://forum.hibernate.org/viewforum.php?f=26
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/projects/BVAL/summary
> [6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/
> [7] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/egnom?id=380
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160810/79332056/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Wed Aug 10 11:43:17 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:43:17 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Introductions
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A15863C9-3558-4B73-BDFC-235816C39CC3@me.com>

Cool news!

Cheers,

Hendrik

> Am 10.08.2016 um 16:45 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm very happy to report that the review ballot for the Bean Validation 2.0 JSR proposal was approved by the JCP EC with a great majority [1]!
> 
> This means we can get the ball rolling and work towards an early draft of the new spec revision. As described in [2], the schedule is compact and thus we'll need to choose the things to tackle wisely. The most important issue will be making BV fit for Java 8, but we should be able to address some other requests besides that.
> 
> The JSR proposal [3] contains a few potential ideas, but I'm very eager to learn about your requests and demands from the field. Anything which helps to further improve usefulness and/or usability of BV is worth discussing.
> 
> Note that you don't need to be on the expert group - although you are very welcome to join [7] - in order to contribute. We also value any inputs by non-members on this mailing list, the forum [4] and the issue tracker [5]. The JCP 2.10 rules (under which this JSR operates) foresee the role of "Contributors" which has very low entry barriers.
> 
> Before diving into details though, let's have a quick round of introductions so everyone knows who they are dealing with :)
> 
> Let me start:
> 
> I'm working as a software engineer in the Hibernate team at Red Hat and took over the lead of the BV JSR from Emmanuel Bernard (who will remain active in the EG). In the past I've been contributing to the 1.1 spec (e.g. method validation), worked on the reference implementation Hibernate Validator (which I'm also leading now) and the 1.1 TCK. Besides BV, I'm working on several other projects in the Hibernate universe, most notably Hibernate OGM (providing object mapping via JPA to NoSQL stores) and Hibernate Search (providing full-text search for JPA domain models).
> 
> I'm looking forward very much to make BV 2.0 happen together with all of you!
> 
> I'll soon start separate thread(s) on some first action items.
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> PS: Please subscribe to the beanvalidation-dev list [6] if you haven't done so yet; it's where discussions mostly will take place. To be sure I've sent this mail in copy to all those who had signalled an interest in contributing to BV 2.0 beforehand.
> 
> [1] https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5871 <https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5871>
> [2] http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/07/15/bean-validation-2-0-is-coming/ <http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/07/15/bean-validation-2-0-is-coming/>
> [3] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=380 <https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=380>
> [4] https://forum.hibernate.org/viewforum.php?f=26 <https://forum.hibernate.org/viewforum.php?f=26>
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/projects/BVAL/summary <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/projects/BVAL/summary>
> [6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/ <http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/>
> [7] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/egnom?id=380 <https://jcp.org/en/jsr/egnom?id=380>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160810/478c3442/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 18 05:17:36 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:17:36 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Three new EG members
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_oNZPiDgsUWnwB=6DYHYstnYD-CEsS_N3mjK-bNawTbA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'm very glad to welcome three new members to the BV 2.0 expert group:
Hendrik Ebbers, Marco Molteni and Werner Keil!

Hendrik from Canoo Engineering AG is very active in the JavaFX field and
has lots of experiences when it comes to using BV in the context of UIs and
JavaFX.

Marco Molteni works as an independent consultant and brings a broad range
of experience with applying BV in projects e.g. in the field of banking to
the table.

Werner Keil finally is a long-term member of the Java EE community and is
member of the JCP EC and several other expert groups, amongst them being
Java Money (JSR 354) for which we should discuss integration with BV.

Hendrik, Marco, Werner, I'll leave it to yourselves to introduce you in
greater depth and share your expectations/ideas towards BV 2.0. Welcome
again and great to have you aboard!

--Gunnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160818/4a57460a/attachment.html 

From guillaume.smet at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 03:46:37 2016
From: guillaume.smet at gmail.com (Guillaume Smet)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:46:37 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Introductions
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALt0+o-7vRAGS6fTLHQ+G=zKkZkD63jUJof+wsSzv2RB8FVBBg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

So, looks like we are all a bit shy!

Let me also introduce myself.

I'm working as a software engineer at Red Hat and I'm part of the
Hibernate team. I will assist Gunnar in making this new version of the
spec and reference implementation a real thing. I joined Red Hat a few
months ago after having spent 13 years in a French IT services company
specialized in OSS. As Gunnar, besides BV, I'm also working on
Hibernate OGM and Hibernate Search - I contributed to Search in my
previous life. On a more personal note, I live in Lyon, France.

I'm really happy to join you! Let's get started!

-- 
Guillaume

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Aug 19 03:55:44 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:55:44 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Spec document converted to AsciiDoc
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_o5jYJRvbL1FS=f2+YLuOu_SFRkqredJSZEjTKnqk_hg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

In a huge team effort (thanks Sanne, Guillaume et al.!) the BV spec has
been converted from DocBook into AsciiDoc.

This should make the editing and collaboration experience much nicer
(easier syntax, renders much faster, rich diff on GitHub etc.). The
AsciiDoc sources of the individual spec chapters can be found at [1]. A
rendered HTML version is published on beanvalidation.org [2]. Refer to the
README.md in the repo if you want to build the spec yourself locally.

It'd be a great help if everyone could take a look at the document and
report back on any formatting or other issues that may have sneaked in
during conversion. No actual changes to the wording have been made at this
point apart from adding some pointers that this is about BV 2.0 and JSR 380.

Thanks for any feedback,

--Gunnar

[1]
https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/tree/master/sources
[2] http://beanvalidation.org/latest-draft/spec/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/7bf41531/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Aug 19 05:46:25 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:46:25 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Some first proposals
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-j5r1t4EXgbC5x8X16jJ=J_Z2Ec_7-A9zbg_BL2p978w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

The way we've been working towards changes in BV 1.1 was via a proposal
document for each suggested change, investigating different options, their
pros and cons etc. As needed, we'd also prototype specific approaches in
the RI. Once consensus was reached, someone would modify the spec document
as per the agreed on solution.

Proposals are simple AsciiDoc files living on the website. There are
already a couple of first proposals for BV 2.0 listed [1]. Feedback on
these is highly welcome, either on GitHub (e.g. by commenting inline or
sending a PR with another option for a given issue) or here on the mailing
list.

Hendrik, the one for BVAL-214 ([2], "Ability to validate an object and a
list of changes") may be of specific interest for JavaFX, because it should
improve cross-field validation in UI use cases (think of field "password"
should match field "password confirm"). What we should do for JavaFX in
general is a very interesting topic on its own, but probably better to
discuss that one separately.

Everyone is welcome to work on new proposals themselves. If you are
interested, check out the issues currently marked for 2.0 in the JIRA
tracker [3] and let me know if you'd like to get going on individual items.

This list of BV 2.0 change candidates is not cast in stone (nor will we be
able to address all of it), so if you think something should be (up high)
on that list, please speak up. My personal focus will mostly be on the Java
8 related changes for the time being, with the usage of type level
annotations being the one requiring the most consideration probably.

Cheers,

--Gunnar

[1] http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/
[2] http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214
[3]
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20BVAL%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/7e4da0af/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Aug 19 06:29:47 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:29:47 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

The XML descriptors in BV (validation.xml, constraint mapping XML files)
use a jboss.org specific namespace as of 1.1. We should change that into
something under jcp.org [1] which is what all other descriptors of Java EE
techs do as of Java EE 7 (see Antonio Goncalves' blog post on this topic at
[2]).

What's rather unclear to me is why most of techs share the same namespace "
http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee", e.g. JSF, CDI and Servlet as per
Antonio's post. I think having a specific names space for BV is more
sensible (as done by JPA, too), not the least because BV isn't tied to EE.

So I'd suggest to use

* http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation" (for validation.xml)
* http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping" (for constraint
validation mapping files)

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

--Gunnar

[1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-455
[2]
https://antoniogoncalves.org/2013/06/04/java-ee-7-deployment-descriptors/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/a5913182/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Fri Aug 19 06:33:51 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:33:51 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Three new EG members
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_oNZPiDgsUWnwB=6DYHYstnYD-CEsS_N3mjK-bNawTbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX_oNZPiDgsUWnwB=6DYHYstnYD-CEsS_N3mjK-bNawTbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <38DB67F8-1654-426B-882E-957FDCF35180@me.com>

Hi all,

I want to use this mail to introduce myself.

I?m a Java developer at Canoo Engineering AG and live in Dortmund, Germany. The last years I worked on several JavaFX projects and did a lot of JavaFX community work (D-Zone RefCard, talks, ?). In general I?m a Java developer / consultant / architect and work in JavaEE, Spring or frontend (JavaFX or Swing) projects. If you want to know more about me you can have a look here: www.guigarage.com :)

I already used JBV in several projects on the server and the client. Last years I did a first proof of concept how JBV can be used in JavaFX: https://github.com/guigarage/ValidateFX
I did extensions for other projects, too. https://github.com/canoo/dolphin-platform/tree/master/platform-extras/dolphin-platform-bean-validation

Cheers,

Hendrik

> Am 18.08.2016 um 11:17 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm very glad to welcome three new members to the BV 2.0 expert group: Hendrik Ebbers, Marco Molteni and Werner Keil!
> 
> Hendrik from Canoo Engineering AG is very active in the JavaFX field and has lots of experiences when it comes to using BV in the context of UIs and JavaFX.
> 
> Marco Molteni works as an independent consultant and brings a broad range of experience with applying BV in projects e.g. in the field of banking to the table.
> 
> Werner Keil finally is a long-term member of the Java EE community and is member of the JCP EC and several other expert groups, amongst them being Java Money (JSR 354) for which we should discuss integration with BV.
> 
> Hendrik, Marco, Werner, I'll leave it to yourselves to introduce you in greater depth and share your expectations/ideas towards BV 2.0. Welcome again and great to have you aboard!
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev



From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Fri Aug 19 06:52:49 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 12:52:49 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <657FCDC3-8C27-4ACD-B2A2-5AF0BC7EAB8F@me.com>

Hi Gunnar,

I like the idea.

Cheers,

Hendrik


> Am 19.08.2016 um 12:29 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The XML descriptors in BV (validation.xml, constraint mapping XML files) use a jboss.org <http://jboss.org/> specific namespace as of 1.1. We should change that into something under jcp.org <http://jcp.org/> [1] which is what all other descriptors of Java EE techs do as of Java EE 7 (see Antonio Goncalves' blog post on this topic at [2]).
> 
> What's rather unclear to me is why most of techs share the same namespace "http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee>", e.g. JSF, CDI and Servlet as per Antonio's post. I think having a specific names space for BV is more sensible (as done by JPA, too), not the least because BV isn't tied to EE.
> 
> So I'd suggest to use
> 
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation>" (for validation.xml)
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping <http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping>" (for constraint validation mapping files)
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-455 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-455>
> [2] https://antoniogoncalves.org/2013/06/04/java-ee-7-deployment-descriptors/ <https://antoniogoncalves.org/2013/06/04/java-ee-7-deployment-descriptors/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/7b804874/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Fri Aug 19 07:10:39 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:10:39 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] CI for API, TCK..
Message-ID: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>

Hi,

should we use Travis (https://travis-ci.org) for CI of all the repos? I can provide a PR that contains the configuration.

Cheers,

Hendrik

From guillaume.smet at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 08:23:37 2016
From: guillaume.smet at gmail.com (Guillaume Smet)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:23:37 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] CI for API, TCK..
In-Reply-To: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>
References: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>
Message-ID: <CALt0+o-GAad-QTcRosVRSsoc+Bdy_z1mOfDcYiS1=AzKxAhMFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Hendrik,

At the moment, the official CI for BV and Hibernate Validator is on
Cloudbees: https://hibernate-validator.ci.cloudbees.com/ .

I did the work to add a .travis.yml for Validator a while ago so that we
can have CI for our own forks.

Not sure it's worth it for every repository but it might be worth the work
for some.

Gunnar, thoughts?

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> should we use Travis (https://travis-ci.org) for CI of all the repos? I
> can provide a PR that contains the configuration.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hendrik
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/78062f29/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Aug 19 08:41:38 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:41:38 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] CI for API, TCK..
In-Reply-To: <CALt0+o-GAad-QTcRosVRSsoc+Bdy_z1mOfDcYiS1=AzKxAhMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>
	<CALt0+o-GAad-QTcRosVRSsoc+Bdy_z1mOfDcYiS1=AzKxAhMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-KhNP34waH3Qj=UYZBm2BymE1YZLpT1X5Jw9Pp5ArGFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Thanks for making this proposal!

As Guillaume is saying, we have CI jobs for all the BV/HV artifacts on
CloudBees already (some other related things such as the website build are
on the main Hibernate CI server).

So I don't think we'll gain very much by adding the Travis configuration.
But if would actually be helpful to you, e.g. in order to more easily have
CI for your own forks, then I don't mind having the config added. Glad to
accept a PR if you feel like giving it a shot.

Cheers,

--Gunnar




2016-08-19 14:23 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>:

> Hi Hendrik,
>
> At the moment, the official CI for BV and Hibernate Validator is on
> Cloudbees: https://hibernate-validator.ci.cloudbees.com/ .
>
> I did the work to add a .travis.yml for Validator a while ago so that we
> can have CI for our own forks.
>
> Not sure it's worth it for every repository but it might be worth the work
> for some.
>
> Gunnar, thoughts?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> should we use Travis (https://travis-ci.org) for CI of all the repos? I
>> can provide a PR that contains the configuration.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Hendrik
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/1341dafc/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Fri Aug 19 08:47:20 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:47:20 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] CI for API, TCK..
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-KhNP34waH3Qj=UYZBm2BymE1YZLpT1X5Jw9Pp5ArGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>
	<CALt0+o-GAad-QTcRosVRSsoc+Bdy_z1mOfDcYiS1=AzKxAhMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-KhNP34waH3Qj=UYZBm2BymE1YZLpT1X5Jw9Pp5ArGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CBF7D7AB-CB2A-439D-9EB0-598C7BE6E447@me.com>

Hi,

that?s fine :) I didn?t know that a CI is already setup.

> Am 19.08.2016 um 14:41 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for making this proposal!
> 
> As Guillaume is saying, we have CI jobs for all the BV/HV artifacts on CloudBees already (some other related things such as the website build are on the main Hibernate CI server).
> 
> So I don't think we'll gain very much by adding the Travis configuration. But if would actually be helpful to you, e.g. in order to more easily have CI for your own forks, then I don't mind having the config added. Glad to accept a PR if you feel like giving it a shot.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016-08-19 14:23 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com <mailto:guillaume.smet at gmail.com>>:
> Hi Hendrik,
> 
> At the moment, the official CI for BV and Hibernate Validator is on Cloudbees: https://hibernate-validator.ci.cloudbees.com/ <https://hibernate-validator.ci.cloudbees.com/> .
> 
> I did the work to add a .travis.yml for Validator a while ago so that we can have CI for our own forks.
> 
> Not sure it's worth it for every repository but it might be worth the work for some.
> 
> Gunnar, thoughts?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com <mailto:hendrik.ebbers at me.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> should we use Travis (https://travis-ci.org <https://travis-ci.org/>) for CI of all the repos? I can provide a PR that contains the configuration.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hendrik
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/7ab7a46c/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Aug 19 08:50:33 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:50:33 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] CI for API, TCK..
In-Reply-To: <CBF7D7AB-CB2A-439D-9EB0-598C7BE6E447@me.com>
References: <F88883D0-DD55-4902-A659-D6277D16801B@me.com>
	<CALt0+o-GAad-QTcRosVRSsoc+Bdy_z1mOfDcYiS1=AzKxAhMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-KhNP34waH3Qj=UYZBm2BymE1YZLpT1X5Jw9Pp5ArGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CBF7D7AB-CB2A-439D-9EB0-598C7BE6E447@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9Au+=4LWDzfPXVWVuLz_PVATQxv-YjaQxLY8H9oE0-yg@mail.gmail.com>

Seems we should add some pointer on beanvalidation.org :)

2016-08-19 14:47 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> Hi,
>
> that?s fine :) I didn?t know that a CI is already setup.
>
> Am 19.08.2016 um 14:41 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for making this proposal!
>
> As Guillaume is saying, we have CI jobs for all the BV/HV artifacts on
> CloudBees already (some other related things such as the website build are
> on the main Hibernate CI server).
>
> So I don't think we'll gain very much by adding the Travis configuration.
> But if would actually be helpful to you, e.g. in order to more easily have
> CI for your own forks, then I don't mind having the config added. Glad to
> accept a PR if you feel like giving it a shot.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
>
>
> 2016-08-19 14:23 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Hendrik,
>>
>> At the moment, the official CI for BV and Hibernate Validator is on
>> Cloudbees: https://hibernate-validator.ci.cloudbees.com/ .
>>
>> I did the work to add a .travis.yml for Validator a while ago so that we
>> can have CI for our own forks.
>>
>> Not sure it's worth it for every repository but it might be worth the
>> work for some.
>>
>> Gunnar, thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> should we use Travis (https://travis-ci.org) for CI of all the repos? I
>>> can provide a PR that contains the configuration.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hendrik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/95c8ec1a/attachment.html 

From guillaume.smet at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 10:46:59 2016
From: guillaume.smet at gmail.com (Guillaume Smet)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:46:59 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALt0+o8xhQLuJUC39zSeqcTzV+YTRz-xke6rNBgHuBMj6fXfsA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I like the idea. Would go for bean-validation though, instead of validation.

-- 
Guillaume

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The XML descriptors in BV (validation.xml, constraint mapping XML files)
> use a jboss.org specific namespace as of 1.1. We should change that into
> something under jcp.org [1] which is what all other descriptors of Java
> EE techs do as of Java EE 7 (see Antonio Goncalves' blog post on this topic
> at [2]).
>
> What's rather unclear to me is why most of techs share the same namespace "
> http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee", e.g. JSF, CDI and Servlet as per
> Antonio's post. I think having a specific names space for BV is more
> sensible (as done by JPA, too), not the least because BV isn't tied to EE.
>
> So I'd suggest to use
>
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation" (for validation.xml)
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping" (for constraint
> validation mapping files)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-455
> [2] https://antoniogoncalves.org/2013/06/04/java-ee-7-
> deployment-descriptors/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/6ef816cc/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 16:02:23 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 22:02:23 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Three new EG members
In-Reply-To: <38DB67F8-1654-426B-882E-957FDCF35180@me.com>
References: <CADGJaX_oNZPiDgsUWnwB=6DYHYstnYD-CEsS_N3mjK-bNawTbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<38DB67F8-1654-426B-882E-957FDCF35180@me.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM0UAh9r-5owkYsYnpYtNgMEWU19x1_8mmVg534U-f+GvQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello everybody,

It seems that it's my turn to introduce myself.

I'm a Java consultant since 2001. I worked as freelance for software
companies, governmental agencies and banks staying all the time on the
front (sitting at the clients desk). As you know external consultants are
called when there are too many problems that nobody can/want solve and the
deadline is .. dead. In short, just the fun :) I had roles as Developer,
Technical consultant, Analyst, Project manager ... whatever the client
needed.

I live and work in Switzerland. Currently I'm working as Java developer on
some banking projects for Hewlett Packard. More here: http://mycv.host

Bean Validator
I used the RI in some projects in which there was a lot of data exchange
between services (RS and WS). As usual, the analysts enjoyed to write tons
of rules about all the possible values for each field and the developers
spent moths to write validation code like : 'if (age == null || age <18 ||
...)' for every field.

The introduction of BV reduced a lot the amount of issues and code.
Unfortunately it seems that nobody think about BV when they start to use
(more and more frequently) WS or REST services (maybe because the RI
contains the name Hibernate?).

My expectations? An easy to use, performant, flexible and well know tool
for the Java developers. I'm glad if I can help with this.

beanvalidation-dev: I will read all the communications on the list, but I
will have the possibility to participate only when I leave the client
office.

Cheers,

Marco


On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to use this mail to introduce myself.
>
> I?m a Java developer at Canoo Engineering AG and live in Dortmund,
> Germany. The last years I worked on several JavaFX projects and did a lot
> of JavaFX community work (D-Zone RefCard, talks, ?). In general I?m a Java
> developer / consultant / architect and work in JavaEE, Spring or frontend
> (JavaFX or Swing) projects. If you want to know more about me you can have
> a look here: www.guigarage.com :)
>
> I already used JBV in several projects on the server and the client. Last
> years I did a first proof of concept how JBV can be used in JavaFX:
> https://github.com/guigarage/ValidateFX
> I did extensions for other projects, too. https://github.com/canoo/
> dolphin-platform/tree/master/platform-extras/dolphin-
> platform-bean-validation
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hendrik
>
> > Am 18.08.2016 um 11:17 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm very glad to welcome three new members to the BV 2.0 expert group:
> Hendrik Ebbers, Marco Molteni and Werner Keil!
> >
> > Hendrik from Canoo Engineering AG is very active in the JavaFX field and
> has lots of experiences when it comes to using BV in the context of UIs and
> JavaFX.
> >
> > Marco Molteni works as an independent consultant and brings a broad
> range of experience with applying BV in projects e.g. in the field of
> banking to the table.
> >
> > Werner Keil finally is a long-term member of the Java EE community and
> is member of the JCP EC and several other expert groups, amongst them being
> Java Money (JSR 354) for which we should discuss integration with BV.
> >
> > Hendrik, Marco, Werner, I'll leave it to yourselves to introduce you in
> greater depth and share your expectations/ideas towards BV 2.0. Welcome
> again and great to have you aboard!
> >
> > --Gunnar
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> > beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160819/31d039a8/attachment-0001.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 18:18:20 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 00:18:20 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM2NeJ1ENgms+0OkjN1XR8G0M0V6Hsq6XCkBWb4vWj6GUw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I like the idea of Gunnar too. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the hypens
in the names (e.g. bean-validation).

I would ask Antonio if there is any particular to use
the 'javaee' namespace. I didn't find any debate about the non-conformity
of the Persistence API (http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/persistence/).


Marco



On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The XML descriptors in BV (validation.xml, constraint mapping XML files)
> use a jboss.org specific namespace as of 1.1. We should change that into
> something under jcp.org [1] which is what all other descriptors of Java
> EE techs do as of Java EE 7 (see Antonio Goncalves' blog post on this topic
> at [2]).
>
> What's rather unclear to me is why most of techs share the same namespace "
> http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/javaee", e.g. JSF, CDI and Servlet as per
> Antonio's post. I think having a specific names space for BV is more
> sensible (as done by JPA, too), not the least because BV isn't tied to EE.
>
> So I'd suggest to use
>
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation" (for validation.xml)
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping" (for constraint
> validation mapping files)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-455
> [2] https://antoniogoncalves.org/2013/06/04/java-ee-7-
> deployment-descriptors/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160820/f9189921/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 13:37:32 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:37:32 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
Message-ID: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

It would be possible to add some built-in constraints to the V 2.0?

@NotBlank, @NotEmpty, @Length are used very often in projects, they are
already present in Hibernate Validator and their implementation is well
defined.

What do you think?

Here a list of the most used constraint for GitHub's projects (the numbers
change at every request but you get the idea. HV = Hibernate Validator, BV
= Bean Validation):

189'143 - BV - NotNull
 56'902 - BV - Size
 39'551 - HV - NotEmpty <-
 20'687 - HV - NotBlank <-
 17'735 - BV - Pattern
 16'763 - HV - Email
 16'033 - BV - Min
 12'769 - HV - Length <-
  7'806 - BV - Digits
  4'982 - BV - Max
  4'971 - BV - Past
  3'598 - BV - DecimalMin
  2'753 - BV - AssertTrue
  2'379 - BV - DecimalMax
  2'308 - BV - Future
  1'999 - HV - Range
  1'497 - HV - URL
< 1'000 other constraints

Thanks

Cheers

Marco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160822/1148fde0/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Mon Aug 22 14:32:14 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:32:14 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C68FF6DE-6F40-453E-A3C6-48C406C886EC@me.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160822/8b0c6961/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Aug 23 06:15:53 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:15:53 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <C68FF6DE-6F40-453E-A3C6-48C406C886EC@me.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C68FF6DE-6F40-453E-A3C6-48C406C886EC@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_6VTXPs5zpT-rOJKyQRz2S=fhkVn-AZ2We3az6L7aopQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marco,

Nice research! Out of curiosity, how did you get these numbers?

Historically, the spec stayed on the conservative end in terms of built-in
constraints. @NotEmpty etc. can quite easily be implemented or even just be
composed based on other built-in constraints. But the numbers you shared
indeed indicate some usefulness of adding at least some.

Would be interesting to know what others think?

Cheers,

--Gunnar




2016-08-22 20:32 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> +1
>
> Am 22.08.2016 um 19:37 schrieb Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> It would be possible to add some built-in constraints to the V 2.0?
>
> @NotBlank, @NotEmpty, @Length are used very often in projects, they are
> already present in Hibernate Validator and their implementation is well
> defined.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Here a list of the most used constraint for GitHub's projects (the numbers
> change at every request but you get the idea. HV = Hibernate Validator,
> BV = Bean Validation):
>
> 189'143 - BV - NotNull
>  56'902 - BV - Size
>  39'551 - HV - NotEmpty <-
>  20'687 - HV - NotBlank <-
>  17'735 - BV - Pattern
>  16'763 - HV - Email
>  16'033 - BV - Min
>  12'769 - HV - Length <-
>   7'806 - BV - Digits
>   4'982 - BV - Max
>   4'971 - BV - Past
>   3'598 - BV - DecimalMin
>   2'753 - BV - AssertTrue
>   2'379 - BV - DecimalMax
>   2'308 - BV - Future
>   1'999 - HV - Range
>   1'497 - HV - URL
> < 1'000 other constraints
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160823/11708d8e/attachment-0001.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Tue Aug 23 11:49:44 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:49:44 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_6VTXPs5zpT-rOJKyQRz2S=fhkVn-AZ2We3az6L7aopQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<C68FF6DE-6F40-453E-A3C6-48C406C886EC@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_6VTXPs5zpT-rOJKyQRz2S=fhkVn-AZ2We3az6L7aopQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM3mJgTP9hFhG31BNBFPUj-Uor3B3HOxhftu09b7yh1_Rw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Gunnar,

Here the procedure to find the result:

1. Quick and dirty

copy this url and rellace the class name in the result page

https://github.com/search?l=&q=javax.validation.constraints.NotNull+language%3AJava&ref=advsearch&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93


2. Step by step

You can go here:

https://github.com/search/advanced

You should search the full class name of the annotation, ex. :
javax.validation.constraints.NotNull

You can set the language to Java. After you execute the query you can
filter only the results in 'Code'.

Like this you can find where an annotation class is imported.


Remarks:

At every execution the result change 5-10%, it's absolutely not scientific
(I don't know how it works their index and search) but you can get an idea
of the usage of some classes.


Cheers,

Marco

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>
> Nice research! Out of curiosity, how did you get these numbers?
>
> Historically, the spec stayed on the conservative end in terms of built-in
> constraints. @NotEmpty etc. can quite easily be implemented or even just be
> composed based on other built-in constraints. But the numbers you shared
> indeed indicate some usefulness of adding at least some.
>
> Would be interesting to know what others think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
>
>
> 2016-08-22 20:32 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Am 22.08.2016 um 19:37 schrieb Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It would be possible to add some built-in constraints to the V 2.0?
>>
>> @NotBlank, @NotEmpty, @Length are used very often in projects, they are
>> already present in Hibernate Validator and their implementation is well
>> defined.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Here a list of the most used constraint for GitHub's projects (the
>> numbers change at every request but you get the idea. HV = Hibernate
>> Validator, BV = Bean Validation):
>>
>> 189'143 - BV - NotNull
>>  56'902 - BV - Size
>>  39'551 - HV - NotEmpty <-
>>  20'687 - HV - NotBlank <-
>>  17'735 - BV - Pattern
>>  16'763 - HV - Email
>>  16'033 - BV - Min
>>  12'769 - HV - Length <-
>>   7'806 - BV - Digits
>>   4'982 - BV - Max
>>   4'971 - BV - Past
>>   3'598 - BV - DecimalMin
>>   2'753 - BV - AssertTrue
>>   2'379 - BV - DecimalMax
>>   2'308 - BV - Future
>>   1'999 - HV - Range
>>   1'497 - HV - URL
>> < 1'000 other constraints
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Marco
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160823/b97ba63f/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 25 06:10:17 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:10:17 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I've pushed another proposal to the website [1], it's about adding
@Past/@Future support for the date/time types added in Java 8 (java.time.*
package, added by JSR 310). The proposal essentially standardizes the
proprietary support we had in HV, plus some additions.

Please let me know what you think, especially on the questions towards the
end. Either put comments inline on the source on GitHub [2] or let's have a
discussion here.

I haven't been using JSR 310 extensively myself, so any feedback by those
who have is more than welcome.

Thanks,

--Gunnar

[1] http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-496/
[2]
https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/blob/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160825/651e6edb/attachment.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 25 07:41:08 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:41:08 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Introductions
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX9eDWcC7tjUBpdBynFd8+nFwfkdaMtbSPjx-LJavAEUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160825114108.GF83706@hibernate.org>

Hey everyone,

I'm glad we finally managed to get this ball rolling :)

I'm Emmanuel Bernard, I'm the platform architect for data related
products at Red Hat middleware and the former spec lead of Bean
Validation.

I'll be contributing as much as I can. Anyways, the lead of the spec
is in good hands.

Cheers

Emmanuel

On Wed 2016-08-10 16:45, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm very happy to report that the review ballot for the Bean Validation 2.0
> JSR proposal was approved by the JCP EC with a great majority [1]!
> 
> This means we can get the ball rolling and work towards an early draft of
> the new spec revision. As described in [2], the schedule is compact and
> thus we'll need to choose the things to tackle wisely. The most important
> issue will be making BV fit for Java 8, but we should be able to address
> some other requests besides that.
> 
> The JSR proposal [3] contains a few potential ideas, but I'm very eager to
> learn about your requests and demands from the field. Anything which helps
> to further improve usefulness and/or usability of BV is worth discussing.
> 
> Note that you don't need to be on the expert group - although you are very
> welcome to join [7] - in order to contribute. We also value any inputs by
> non-members on this mailing list, the forum [4] and the issue tracker [5].
> The JCP 2.10 rules (under which this JSR operates) foresee the role of
> "Contributors" which has very low entry barriers.
> 
> Before diving into details though, let's have a quick round of
> introductions so everyone knows who they are dealing with :)
> 
> Let me start:
> 
> I'm working as a software engineer in the Hibernate team at Red Hat and
> took over the lead of the BV JSR from Emmanuel Bernard (who will remain
> active in the EG). In the past I've been contributing to the 1.1 spec (e.g.
> method validation), worked on the reference implementation Hibernate
> Validator (which I'm also leading now) and the 1.1 TCK. Besides BV, I'm
> working on several other projects in the Hibernate universe, most notably
> Hibernate OGM (providing object mapping via JPA to NoSQL stores) and
> Hibernate Search (providing full-text search for JPA domain models).
> 
> I'm looking forward very much to make BV 2.0 happen together with all of
> you!
> 
> I'll soon start separate thread(s) on some first action items.
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> PS: Please subscribe to the beanvalidation-dev list [6] if you haven't done
> so yet; it's where discussions mostly will take place. To be sure I've sent
> this mail in copy to all those who had signalled an interest in
> contributing to BV 2.0 beforehand.
> 
> [1] https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5871
> [2] http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/07/15/bean-validation-2-0-is-coming/
> [3] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=380
> [4] https://forum.hibernate.org/viewforum.php?f=26
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/projects/BVAL/summary
> [6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/
> [7] https://jcp.org/en/jsr/egnom?id=380

> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev


From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 25 08:03:36 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:03:36 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160825120336.GG83706@hibernate.org>

On Fri 2016-08-19 12:29, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation" (for validation.xml)
> * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping" (for constraint
> validation mapping files)

This is my preference as well (i.e. not to have javaee in the
namespace).

Emmanuel

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 25 08:23:08 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:23:08 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Namespace for XML descriptors
In-Reply-To: <20160825120336.GG83706@hibernate.org>
References: <CADGJaX8GMGq-V_e0taQWokFMsO3ZVMkiS0T8CqK_uPiPOeh77A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160825120336.GG83706@hibernate.org>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9kF6q5hLCs0zOuhKD37098LdjV+0G83L1g+s-q4OFLbw@mail.gmail.com>

Cool.

It has been changed like this, with one small deviation, it's "
http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/configuration" and "
http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping".

The reasoning for appending "configuration" to the main one being closer
resemblance to the previous BV name. Also the file is named
"validation-configuration-2.0.xsd" instead of "validation-2.0.xsd".

I've asked the PMO how to put up files to jcp.org eventually but am still
waiting to hear back.

--Gunnar


2016-08-25 14:03 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:

> On Fri 2016-08-19 12:29, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation" (for validation.xml)
> > * http://xmlns.jcp.org/xml/ns/validation/mapping" (for constraint
> > validation mapping files)
>
> This is my preference as well (i.e. not to have javaee in the
> namespace).
>
> Emmanuel
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160825/d1cb5cd0/attachment-0001.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Thu Aug 25 08:28:08 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:28:08 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160825122808.GA90254@hibernate.org>

The historical reason for the restricted list of constraints in the BV
spec is that this set represents the fundamental constraints you can
express and often propagate to other systems (like DB DDLs). So the
reluctance came from this and a hope that an ecosystem of constraints
would be built.

But these numbers are interesting (*) and embracing more constraints
looks like a good idea. It is probably worth doing a blog to gather
feedback. Or maybe a survey.

(*) GitHub hosts a list of "non-usual" projects, most 9-5 projects are
behind closed source doors. So there is a natural skew.

Emmanuel

On Mon 2016-08-22 19:37, Marco Molteni wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> It would be possible to add some built-in constraints to the V 2.0?
> 
> @NotBlank, @NotEmpty, @Length are used very often in projects, they are
> already present in Hibernate Validator and their implementation is well
> defined.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Here a list of the most used constraint for GitHub's projects (the numbers
> change at every request but you get the idea. HV = Hibernate Validator, BV
> = Bean Validation):
> 
> 189'143 - BV - NotNull
>  56'902 - BV - Size
>  39'551 - HV - NotEmpty <-
>  20'687 - HV - NotBlank <-
>  17'735 - BV - Pattern
>  16'763 - HV - Email
>  16'033 - BV - Min
>  12'769 - HV - Length <-
>   7'806 - BV - Digits
>   4'982 - BV - Max
>   4'971 - BV - Past
>   3'598 - BV - DecimalMin
>   2'753 - BV - AssertTrue
>   2'379 - BV - DecimalMax
>   2'308 - BV - Future
>   1'999 - HV - Range
>   1'497 - HV - URL
> < 1'000 other constraints
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Marco

> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev


From moltenma at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 01:38:59 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:38:59 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Promote fail fast?
Message-ID: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

What do you think about the 'promotion' of fail-fast (from hibernate
validator) to the BV API?

I see frequently this 2 use cases (in the 9-5 projects) to support the
request ;)

1. batch: there are a lot of batch processes that have to validate the
input data (flat file -> bean -> validation) and return for each bean only
a technical error if at least one field is not valid ('input refused').
When there are millions (e.g. payments transactions) of beans to validate
in a batch and 30-50 fields for each bean the fail-fast saves a lot of time
(and the night is never long enough for all the batches required) ;)

2. REST response: in the validation of REST services often when 2 systems
exchange data the answer in case of error is an HTTP 4xx without many
details. The fail-fast is a time and machine resources saving when your
application is accessed by (hundred of) thousand users through some
external web client (e.g. JS client).

In the do-it-yourself implementations for the 2 uses cases at the first
error an IllegalArgumentException is thrown with the information of the
first error found.

The full test of every field is very well suited for uses cases in which
there is a human to machine communication (e.g. web forms).

If your opinion is positive I can do more investigations if needed.

Cheers

Marco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160829/1dd8644c/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Aug 30 02:48:59 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:48:59 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Promote fail fast?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_Q5+gTmTJCJBhK3Ptv84JFP5vJPW6d7F7E_bhAvtw2NQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marco,

Thanks for bringing up this proposal. I think it'd be a good addition. Can
you open a BVAL issue for it?

A variation could be to not stop after the first failure but after the
first n, with n being a configurable number. I can't see a compelling use
case for this, though. Usually you just want a quick exit if an object is
invalid, so a binary setting should do it.

@Others, any thoughts from your side?

Cheers,

--Gunnar


2016-08-29 7:38 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> Hi guys,
>
> What do you think about the 'promotion' of fail-fast (from hibernate
> validator) to the BV API?
>
> I see frequently this 2 use cases (in the 9-5 projects) to support the
> request ;)
>
> 1. batch: there are a lot of batch processes that have to validate the
> input data (flat file -> bean -> validation) and return for each bean only
> a technical error if at least one field is not valid ('input refused').
> When there are millions (e.g. payments transactions) of beans to validate
> in a batch and 30-50 fields for each bean the fail-fast saves a lot of time
> (and the night is never long enough for all the batches required) ;)
>
> 2. REST response: in the validation of REST services often when 2 systems
> exchange data the answer in case of error is an HTTP 4xx without many
> details. The fail-fast is a time and machine resources saving when your
> application is accessed by (hundred of) thousand users through some
> external web client (e.g. JS client).
>
> In the do-it-yourself implementations for the 2 uses cases at the first
> error an IllegalArgumentException is thrown with the information of the
> first error found.
>
> The full test of every field is very well suited for uses cases in which
> there is a human to machine communication (e.g. web forms).
>
> If your opinion is positive I can do more investigations if needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/19de0114/attachment.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Tue Aug 30 04:42:52 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:42:52 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Promote fail fast?
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_Q5+gTmTJCJBhK3Ptv84JFP5vJPW6d7F7E_bhAvtw2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_Q5+gTmTJCJBhK3Ptv84JFP5vJPW6d7F7E_bhAvtw2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160830084252.GM90254@hibernate.org>

I don't think a n option would make sense.
One that might make sense is to keep validating a failing field with the
remaining constraints before stopping to at least have a comprehensive
view of the failure especially when constraints are composed.

Emmanuel

On Tue 2016-08-30  8:48, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> 
> Thanks for bringing up this proposal. I think it'd be a good addition. Can
> you open a BVAL issue for it?
> 
> A variation could be to not stop after the first failure but after the
> first n, with n being a configurable number. I can't see a compelling use
> case for this, though. Usually you just want a quick exit if an object is
> invalid, so a binary setting should do it.
> 
> @Others, any thoughts from your side?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> 
> 2016-08-29 7:38 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > What do you think about the 'promotion' of fail-fast (from hibernate
> > validator) to the BV API?
> >
> > I see frequently this 2 use cases (in the 9-5 projects) to support the
> > request ;)
> >
> > 1. batch: there are a lot of batch processes that have to validate the
> > input data (flat file -> bean -> validation) and return for each bean only
> > a technical error if at least one field is not valid ('input refused').
> > When there are millions (e.g. payments transactions) of beans to validate
> > in a batch and 30-50 fields for each bean the fail-fast saves a lot of time
> > (and the night is never long enough for all the batches required) ;)
> >
> > 2. REST response: in the validation of REST services often when 2 systems
> > exchange data the answer in case of error is an HTTP 4xx without many
> > details. The fail-fast is a time and machine resources saving when your
> > application is accessed by (hundred of) thousand users through some
> > external web client (e.g. JS client).
> >
> > In the do-it-yourself implementations for the 2 uses cases at the first
> > error an IllegalArgumentException is thrown with the information of the
> > first error found.
> >
> > The full test of every field is very well suited for uses cases in which
> > there is a human to machine communication (e.g. web forms).
> >
> > If your opinion is positive I can do more investigations if needed.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Marco
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> > beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
> >

> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev


From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Aug 30 08:34:03 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:34:03 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Making built-in constraints repeatable
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8FecZMGfCzu00q=Vg=ONTcciyC2jt=+cLnfUEJR96GTg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

One of the things making life easier in Java 8 is repeatable annotations
[1], for instance allowing to specify several @Pattern constraints, without
the explicit usage of @Pattern.List.

The transition is very smooth for BV built-in constraints, essentially we
just need to mark them with @Repeatable, using the existing inner @List
annotations as containers. Hence I didn't bother to create a separate
proposal document but instead Guillaume and me have prepared changes for
the API and the spec already. You can find the GitHub pull requests at [2]
and [3], respectively.

Speaking of changes to the API sources, we also increased the Java version
to 8, bumped the project version to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT and we've prepared a
change for BVAL-486 [4] which is about not going through the provider
resolver if a specific provider type is passed into bootstrapping via
Validation#byProvider(). This was a tad inconvenient when e.g. explicitly
bootstrapping the RI under OSGi, where you still had to provide a specific
provider resolver.

Please let me know if you have any concerns or other remarks on any of
these by the end of the week. Silence will be taken as expression of
agreement :)

Cheers,

--Gunnar

[1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/annotations/repeating.html
[2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/65
[3] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/pull/111
[4] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/66
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/5deb789c/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Aug 30 08:39:33 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:39:33 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone with thoughts/input on supporting the JSR 310 types?

2016-08-25 12:10 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I've pushed another proposal to the website [1], it's about adding
> @Past/@Future support for the date/time types added in Java 8 (java.time.*
> package, added by JSR 310). The proposal essentially standardizes the
> proprietary support we had in HV, plus some additions.
>
> Please let me know what you think, especially on the questions towards the
> end. Either put comments inline on the source on GitHub [2] or let's have a
> discussion here.
>
> I haven't been using JSR 310 extensively myself, so any feedback by those
> who have is more than welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-496/
> [2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.
> org/blob/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/7ff65dfe/attachment-0001.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 16:41:05 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:41:05 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM3ZFiRiHZg1L=E=XBzB7K6iBo=wmKPK3FhEraYk4yBmWA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Gunnar,

I agree with the implementation of @Past and @Future with the possibility
to customize the TZ.

The date can be provided by an external client (e.g. via web service) and
it should be possible to validate it against the timezone of the external
client (e.g. time of payment to a local branch) or the local server TZ
(e.g. international transaction).

Personally I don't see the need to add other types to the validation, they
can be easily converted in other Java types (Month -> Integer etc.) or
require specific use cases (e.g. HijraEra).

Most of the uses cases that I see ask only the validation of a date (e.g.
@Past date for an event, @Future date today for a payment) or (less
frequently) date and time.

Cheers

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Anyone with thoughts/input on supporting the JSR 310 types?
>
> 2016-08-25 12:10 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've pushed another proposal to the website [1], it's about adding
>> @Past/@Future support for the date/time types added in Java 8 (java.time.*
>> package, added by JSR 310). The proposal essentially standardizes the
>> proprietary support we had in HV, plus some additions.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think, especially on the questions towards
>> the end. Either put comments inline on the source on GitHub [2] or let's
>> have a discussion here.
>>
>> I haven't been using JSR 310 extensively myself, so any feedback by those
>> who have is more than welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>> [1] http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-496/
>> [2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/
>> blob/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/20869982/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 16:44:37 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:44:37 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Making built-in constraints repeatable
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX8FecZMGfCzu00q=Vg=ONTcciyC2jt=+cLnfUEJR96GTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8FecZMGfCzu00q=Vg=ONTcciyC2jt=+cLnfUEJR96GTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM0-30t8a7PO-9DDmBCs7JeO-9hacT-xOCrwcsdS8sV0zQ@mail.gmail.com>

Explicit agreement from me :)

Thanks guys

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> One of the things making life easier in Java 8 is repeatable annotations
> [1], for instance allowing to specify several @Pattern constraints, without
> the explicit usage of @Pattern.List.
>
> The transition is very smooth for BV built-in constraints, essentially we
> just need to mark them with @Repeatable, using the existing inner @List
> annotations as containers. Hence I didn't bother to create a separate
> proposal document but instead Guillaume and me have prepared changes for
> the API and the spec already. You can find the GitHub pull requests at [2]
> and [3], respectively.
>
> Speaking of changes to the API sources, we also increased the Java version
> to 8, bumped the project version to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT and we've prepared a
> change for BVAL-486 [4] which is about not going through the provider
> resolver if a specific provider type is passed into bootstrapping via
> Validation#byProvider(). This was a tad inconvenient when e.g. explicitly
> bootstrapping the RI under OSGi, where you still had to provide a specific
> provider resolver.
>
> Please let me know if you have any concerns or other remarks on any of
> these by the end of the week. Silence will be taken as expression of
> agreement :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/
> annotations/repeating.html
> [2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/65
> [3] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/pull/111
> [4] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/66
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/83f95fbb/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 17:01:25 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:01:25 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Promote fail fast?
In-Reply-To: <20160830084252.GM90254@hibernate.org>
References: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_Q5+gTmTJCJBhK3Ptv84JFP5vJPW6d7F7E_bhAvtw2NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160830084252.GM90254@hibernate.org>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM0ceJusrK5VGm3_vPR=a6nsA0iFyNPeyEmaHpNsXLu3sg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Gunnar,

I will open a BVAL issue. Interesting the n option, but I didn't find any
concrete use case neither. As you said, usually the result expected is true
or false.

Cheers

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> I don't think a n option would make sense.
> One that might make sense is to keep validating a failing field with the
> remaining constraints before stopping to at least have a comprehensive
> view of the failure especially when constraints are composed.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Tue 2016-08-30  8:48, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up this proposal. I think it'd be a good addition.
> Can
> > you open a BVAL issue for it?
> >
> > A variation could be to not stop after the first failure but after the
> > first n, with n being a configurable number. I can't see a compelling use
> > case for this, though. Usually you just want a quick exit if an object is
> > invalid, so a binary setting should do it.
> >
> > @Others, any thoughts from your side?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > --Gunnar
> >
> >
> > 2016-08-29 7:38 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > What do you think about the 'promotion' of fail-fast (from hibernate
> > > validator) to the BV API?
> > >
> > > I see frequently this 2 use cases (in the 9-5 projects) to support the
> > > request ;)
> > >
> > > 1. batch: there are a lot of batch processes that have to validate the
> > > input data (flat file -> bean -> validation) and return for each bean
> only
> > > a technical error if at least one field is not valid ('input refused').
> > > When there are millions (e.g. payments transactions) of beans to
> validate
> > > in a batch and 30-50 fields for each bean the fail-fast saves a lot of
> time
> > > (and the night is never long enough for all the batches required) ;)
> > >
> > > 2. REST response: in the validation of REST services often when 2
> systems
> > > exchange data the answer in case of error is an HTTP 4xx without many
> > > details. The fail-fast is a time and machine resources saving when your
> > > application is accessed by (hundred of) thousand users through some
> > > external web client (e.g. JS client).
> > >
> > > In the do-it-yourself implementations for the 2 uses cases at the first
> > > error an IllegalArgumentException is thrown with the information of the
> > > first error found.
> > >
> > > The full test of every field is very well suited for uses cases in
> which
> > > there is a human to machine communication (e.g. web forms).
> > >
> > > If your opinion is positive I can do more investigations if needed.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Marco
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> > > beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
> > >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> > beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160830/a5d2db27/attachment.html