From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Sep  1 04:14:45 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:14:45 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Meeting at JavaOne?
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should
be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and
exchange.

As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the
20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!

Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by
then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating
this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David
Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be
there, so make sure to get hold of him :)

Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g.
javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues
around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:

* Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation
(BVAL-520, [4])
* Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with
JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
* Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator

Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would
be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.

Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with
forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

--Gunnar

[1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K
[2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248
[3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515
[4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520
[5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160901/c2a1dfc2/attachment-0001.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 06:14:49 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:14:49 +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: <451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>

I like the the proposal :)
Currently it do not support new data types like Period or Duration (implementations of TemporalAmount). But for this types new annotations / constraints are needed. The question is if this should be supported by the JSR, too.

> Am 30.08.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Anyone with thoughts/input on supporting the JSR 310 types?
> 
> 2016-08-25 12:10 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org <mailto: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/ <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-496/>
> [2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/blob/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc <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/20160901/8975265c/attachment.html 

From otaviojava at java.net  Thu Sep  1 06:40:37 2016
From: otaviojava at java.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ot=C3=A1vio_Gon=C3=A7alves_de_Santana?=)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:40:37 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
Message-ID: <CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>

Period or Duration is a good idea. Once it's Java 8 and BV 2.0 will support
it. IMHO makes sense has support to it.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
wrote:

> I like the the proposal :)
> Currently it do not support new data types like Period or Duration
> (implementations of TemporalAmount). But for this types new annotations /
> constraints are needed. The question is if this should be supported by the
> JSR, too.
>
> Am 30.08.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>



-- 
Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana


twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
site:     *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160901/fc2898a0/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 07:02:53 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:02:53 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Feedback for BVAL-214
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <552DE9BB-4A53-4EA6-AC7D-F5888A305E25@me.com>

Hi,

I had a deeper look at BVAL-214 (http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/) and have some additional input. Since we depend on java 8 I think it would make sense to use suppliers to create the bean mocks for validation. This can look like this:

BeanValidator<ContactDataModel> contactValidator = BeanValidator.build(ContactDataModel.class);
contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText()).
        withProperty("zipCode", () -> zipCodeField.getText());

In addition I think that it will be important to have a better feedback for the violations that are based on a UI field. If you have a violation based in the text of the cityField you normally want to mark that field in the UI. I think a consumer can really help here:

contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText(), v -> markCityField(v));
By doing so you will always get the set of violations that is based on the value in the city field.

You can find a first idea of such an interface and 2 view controller examples here: https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation

Cheers,

Hendrik



> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and exchange.
> 
> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
> 
> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
> 
> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g. javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
> 
> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation (BVAL-520, [4])
> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
> 
> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
> 
> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K>
> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248>
> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515>
> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520>
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160901/1a5c942a/attachment-0001.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 07:06:14 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:06:14 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Feedback for BVAL-214
In-Reply-To: <552DE9BB-4A53-4EA6-AC7D-F5888A305E25@me.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552DE9BB-4A53-4EA6-AC7D-F5888A305E25@me.com>
Message-ID: <50A0FC46-F61E-4665-B9F3-05A98FC8CC8D@me.com>

How should we handle the proposals?

- discuss by mail?
- PR to: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/blob/staging/proposals/BVAL-214.md
- comment on page: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/

Currently I have no idea what is the right way :)

Cheers,

Hendrik


> Am 01.09.2016 um 13:02 schrieb Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I had a deeper look at BVAL-214 (http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/ <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/>) and have some additional input. Since we depend on java 8 I think it would make sense to use suppliers to create the bean mocks for validation. This can look like this:
> 
> BeanValidator<ContactDataModel> contactValidator = BeanValidator.build(ContactDataModel.class);
> contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText()).
>         withProperty("zipCode", () -> zipCodeField.getText());
> 
> In addition I think that it will be important to have a better feedback for the violations that are based on a UI field. If you have a violation based in the text of the cityField you normally want to mark that field in the UI. I think a consumer can really help here:
> 
> contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText(), v -> markCityField(v));
> By doing so you will always get the set of violations that is based on the value in the city field.
> 
> You can find a first idea of such an interface and 2 view controller examples here: https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation <https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation>
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hendrik
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org <mailto:gunnar at hibernate.org>>:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and exchange.
>> 
>> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
>> 
>> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
>> 
>> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g. javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
>> 
>> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation (BVAL-520, [4])
>> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
>> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
>> 
>> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
>> 
>> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --Gunnar
>> 
>> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K>
>> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248>
>> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515>
>> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520>
>> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160901/d5562a4f/attachment.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Thu Sep  1 07:50:39 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:50:39 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Feedback for BVAL-214
In-Reply-To: <50A0FC46-F61E-4665-B9F3-05A98FC8CC8D@me.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552DE9BB-4A53-4EA6-AC7D-F5888A305E25@me.com>
	<50A0FC46-F61E-4665-B9F3-05A98FC8CC8D@me.com>
Message-ID: <20160901115039.GI19424@hibernate.org>

In the past, what we have done is separate the proposal page on the
website as followed

## problem description

## Proposal 1: The salmon bagel

## Proposal 2: On the merits of veggie bagels

...

So if you have an alternative proposal, send a PR with a new section.
Also cross post it here as some people only check the ML.

On Thu 2016-09-01 13:06, Hendrik Ebbers wrote:
> How should we handle the proposals?
> 
> - discuss by mail?
> - PR to: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/blob/staging/proposals/BVAL-214.md
> - comment on page: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/
> 
> Currently I have no idea what is the right way :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hendrik
> 
> 
> > Am 01.09.2016 um 13:02 schrieb Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I had a deeper look at BVAL-214 (http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/ <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/>) and have some additional input. Since we depend on java 8 I think it would make sense to use suppliers to create the bean mocks for validation. This can look like this:
> > 
> > BeanValidator<ContactDataModel> contactValidator = BeanValidator.build(ContactDataModel.class);
> > contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText()).
> >         withProperty("zipCode", () -> zipCodeField.getText());
> > 
> > In addition I think that it will be important to have a better feedback for the violations that are based on a UI field. If you have a violation based in the text of the cityField you normally want to mark that field in the UI. I think a consumer can really help here:
> > 
> > contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText(), v -> markCityField(v));
> > By doing so you will always get the set of violations that is based on the value in the city field.
> > 
> > You can find a first idea of such an interface and 2 view controller examples here: https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation <https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation>
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Hendrik
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org <mailto:gunnar at hibernate.org>>:
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and exchange.
> >> 
> >> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
> >> 
> >> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
> >> 
> >> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g. javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
> >> 
> >> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation (BVAL-520, [4])
> >> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
> >> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
> >> 
> >> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
> >> 
> >> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
> >> 
> >> Thoughts?
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> 
> >> --Gunnar
> >> 
> >> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K>
> >> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248>
> >> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515>
> >> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520>
> >> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518>
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > 
> 

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


From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 10:17:05 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:17:05 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Feedback for BVAL-214
In-Reply-To: <20160901115039.GI19424@hibernate.org>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552DE9BB-4A53-4EA6-AC7D-F5888A305E25@me.com>
	<50A0FC46-F61E-4665-B9F3-05A98FC8CC8D@me.com>
	<20160901115039.GI19424@hibernate.org>
Message-ID: <59B94E27-BF50-4194-95EA-E554FFB22DA5@me.com>

THX, added a pull request.


> Am 01.09.2016 um 13:50 schrieb Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> 
> In the past, what we have done is separate the proposal page on the
> website as followed
> 
> ## problem description
> 
> ## Proposal 1: The salmon bagel
> 
> ## Proposal 2: On the merits of veggie bagels
> 
> ...
> 
> So if you have an alternative proposal, send a PR with a new section.
> Also cross post it here as some people only check the ML.
> 
> On Thu 2016-09-01 13:06, Hendrik Ebbers wrote:
>> How should we handle the proposals?
>> 
>> - discuss by mail?
>> - PR to: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation.org/blob/staging/proposals/BVAL-214.md
>> - comment on page: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/
>> 
>> Currently I have no idea what is the right way :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Hendrik
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 01.09.2016 um 13:02 schrieb Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I had a deeper look at BVAL-214 (http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/ <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/> <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/ <http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-214/>>) and have some additional input. Since we depend on java 8 I think it would make sense to use suppliers to create the bean mocks for validation. This can look like this:
>>> 
>>> BeanValidator<ContactDataModel> contactValidator = BeanValidator.build(ContactDataModel.class);
>>> contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText()).
>>>        withProperty("zipCode", () -> zipCodeField.getText());
>>> 
>>> In addition I think that it will be important to have a better feedback for the violations that are based on a UI field. If you have a violation based in the text of the cityField you normally want to mark that field in the UI. I think a consumer can really help here:
>>> 
>>> contactValidator.withProperty("city", () -> cityField.getText(), v -> markCityField(v));
>>> By doing so you will always get the set of violations that is based on the value in the city field.
>>> 
>>> You can find a first idea of such an interface and 2 view controller examples here: https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation <https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation> <https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation <https://github.com/guigarage/validation-playground/tree/master/src/main/java/com/guigarage/dynamicvalidation>>
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Hendrik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org <mailto:gunnar at hibernate.org> <mailto:gunnar at hibernate.org <mailto:gunnar at hibernate.org>>>:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and exchange.
>>>> 
>>>> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
>>>> 
>>>> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g. javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
>>>> 
>>>> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation (BVAL-520, [4])
>>>> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
>>>> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
>>>> 
>>>> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
>>>> 
>>>> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> --Gunnar
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K> <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K>>
>>>> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248> <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248>>
>>>> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515> <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515>>
>>>> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520> <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520>>
>>>> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518> <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518>>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160901/b5c85dac/attachment-0001.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 10:30:14 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:30:14 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
Message-ID: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>

Hi all,

currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I asked myself if I can become member of the team, too. 

In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org <http://beanvalidation.org/>. I know an illustrator that did a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting machines: He created all the duke animations (http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I would love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke that stamps beans. What do you think?

Cheers,

Hendrik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160901/486304c3/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep  1 10:31:27 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:31:27 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Meeting at JavaOne?
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <94685A7A-5320-4291-9EEC-F449DA9DD342@me.com>

Hi,

I will be at J1 and will attend the hackergarten. I know David and can chat with him about the proposal (maybe even before J1). I will have a deeper look at this one the next days.

Cheers,

Hendrik


> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to meet and exchange.
> 
> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
> 
> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
> 
> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g. javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
> 
> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation (BVAL-520, [4])
> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
> 
> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
> 
> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K <http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K>
> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248>
> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515>
> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520>
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518 <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160901/03d47c61/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Sep  2 03:27:59 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 09:27:59 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Hendrik,

Great ideas! Further details inline.

2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation
> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I
> asked myself if I can become member of the team, too.
>

I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub
organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your
GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under
the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on
commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.

I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But
please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull
requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our
core principles really.

In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this at
> Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org. I know an illustrator that did a
> lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting machines:
> He created all the duke animations (http://www.guigarage.com/
> 2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I would love to ask him for a logo
> for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke that stamps beans. What do
> you think?
>

Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been bugging me
for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some details.

Cheers,
>
> Hendrik
>

--Gunnar


>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160902/0959fe99/attachment.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Fri Sep  2 07:57:53 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 13:57:53 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>

Cool!

Question: Should we still use forks or can we work with features branches directly in then bean validation repos?

Hendrik

> Am 02.09.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> 
> Hi Hendrik,
> 
> Great ideas! Further details inline.
> 
> 2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com <mailto:hendrik.ebbers at me.com>>:
> Hi all,
> 
> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation <https://github.com/beanvalidation> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I asked myself if I can become member of the team, too. 
> 
> I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.
> 
> I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our core principles really.
> 
> In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org <http://beanvalidation.org/>. I know an illustrator that did a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting machines: He created all the duke animations (http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/ <http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/>). I would love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke that stamps beans. What do you think?
> 
> Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been bugging me for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some details.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hendrik
> 
> --Gunnar
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160902/4de19272/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Sep  2 08:09:39 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:09:39 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-oH5AkP1d6e8g7B++2QPY3F0w1peVBf8kWeSCoVMJbnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Please still use a fork and send pull requests from that.

We usually don't have feature branches in the "blessed" upstream repos,
only if several people happen to work together on a single "thing" for a
longer period of time.

2016-09-02 13:57 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> Cool!
>
> Question: Should we still use forks or can we work with features branches
> directly in then bean validation repos?
>
> Hendrik
>
> Am 02.09.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
> Hi Hendrik,
>
> Great ideas! Further details inline.
>
> 2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation
>> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I
>> asked myself if I can become member of the team, too.
>>
>
> I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub
> organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your
> GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under
> the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on
> commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.
>
> I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But
> please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull
> requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our
> core principles really.
>
> In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this
>> at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org. I know an illustrator that did
>> a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting
>> machines: He created all the duke animations (
>> http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I would
>> love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke
>> that stamps beans. What do you think?
>>
>
> Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been bugging
> me for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some details.
>
> Cheers,
>>
>> Hendrik
>>
>
> --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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160902/fdb8b5e7/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Sun Sep  4 09:22:23 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 15:22:23 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] New EG member: Christian Kaltepoth
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-NtW9brNr8UUcCkP9KXihv+KW+r0-+C6UPquDP-yJAkw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I'd like to say a warm welcome to our latest expert group member: Christian
Kaltepoth!

Christian works with ingenit GmbH in Dortmund, Germany, is a long time user
of Java EE and also serves in the expert group for MVC 1.0 (JSR 371). I'm
sure we can use his connections with the MVC and JAX-RS communities to
further drive the integration of BV and these techs.

Christian, I'm very happy to have you aboard and please feel free to
introduce yourself in more depth if you like and let us know what your
wishes and ideas are towards BV 2.0.

Cheers,

--Gunnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160904/778e1c8d/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Sun Sep  4 12:32:12 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 18:32:12 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] New EG member: Christian Kaltepoth
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-NtW9brNr8UUcCkP9KXihv+KW+r0-+C6UPquDP-yJAkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX-NtW9brNr8UUcCkP9KXihv+KW+r0-+C6UPquDP-yJAkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6xi9kT5A_knJiJKQrOGunK=5u1GHOCBODM7cmbqU=rkhA@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Gunnar, Hey all,

thank you very much for the introduction. I'm very happy to be part of this
expert group. A few words about myself:

My name is Christian Kaltepoth. I'm senior developer with ingenit in
Dortmund, Germany. I've been working with Java EE for many many years.
And I've been using BV since the first release especially in the context of
JPA, JAX-RS and JAX-WS. As Gunnar already mentioned I'm also member of the
JSR 371 (MVC 1.0) expert group and worked a lot on the BV integration in
the spec and in the RI. I'm also a regular open source contributor and
involved in projects like Apache DeltaSpike, Rewrite, Togglz and a frequent
speaker at conferences

I'm looking forward to work with you on BV 2.0. My special interest is the
alignment with Java 8 and to improve the integration with other
specifications, especially JAX-RS and MVC 1.0.

I'll try to catch up with the current discussions and proposals in the next
days.

Christian



2016-09-04 15:22 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to say a warm welcome to our latest expert group member:
> Christian Kaltepoth!
>
> Christian works with ingenit GmbH in Dortmund, Germany, is a long time
> user of Java EE and also serves in the expert group for MVC 1.0 (JSR 371).
> I'm sure we can use his connections with the MVC and JAX-RS communities to
> further drive the integration of BV and these techs.
>
> Christian, I'm very happy to have you aboard and please feel free to
> introduce yourself in more depth if you like and let us know what your
> wishes and ideas are towards BV 2.0.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160904/3ea737b1/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Tue Sep  6 00:53:04 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 06:53:04 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,

I just reviewed the proposal in more detail. I really like it. Great work.
Some comments:

*Make current time and timezone customizable*
I also don't see a use case for making the retrieval more contextual. But
if we design the TimeProvider this way, adding something to the method
signature won't be possible in the future. However, I don't think this is a
real problem. Unless someone comes up with some use case.

*Other JSR 310 types to support*
If we support the "Year" type, we should also support "YearMonth". This
type is not so widely used, but it feels strange to not support it if we
support "Year".


Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate, YearMonth
and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user to specify that
the "current" year/month/date should also be valid? I'm thinking of
something like:

@Past( inclusive=true )
private LocalDate someDate;     // valid if someDate <= today

Thoughts?


Christian


2016-09-01 12:40 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <otaviojava at java.net>
:

> Period or Duration is a good idea. Once it's Java 8 and BV 2.0 will
> support it. IMHO makes sense has support to it.
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I like the the proposal :)
>> Currently it do not support new data types like Period or Duration
>> (implementations of TemporalAmount). But for this types new annotations /
>> constraints are needed. The question is if this should be supported by the
>> JSR, too.
>>
>> Am 30.08.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>
>> 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/blo
>>> b/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana
>
>
> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
> site:     *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160906/94cf1fbc/attachment-0001.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Tue Sep  6 12:12:13 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:12:13 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
Message-ID: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>

Hi all,

I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
more complicated that it seems at first glance.

Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
elements to validate them.

This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/

This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
would need to become part of the spec as next step.

Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.

In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.

The capability to define custom containers.

The extractor approach vs its alternative.

The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
subclasses of containers.

@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
transition.

And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
less elaborated at this stage).

Emmanuel

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep  6 14:35:30 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:35:30 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Some first proposals
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-j5r1t4EXgbC5x8X16jJ=J_Z2Ec_7-A9zbg_BL2p978w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX-j5r1t4EXgbC5x8X16jJ=J_Z2Ec_7-A9zbg_BL2p978w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oVmMrRiffik1zVJmY1g_qaFbjW5Hm045AXj-MdrYzvp3w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

Catching up after vacation.

What is the best way to provide feedback for BVAL-214? Sending it
here, in the comments for the proposal, in a different thread?

Regards,
Michael
r

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep  6 14:47:44 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:47:44 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Invalid value interpolation
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oUcZ3J7Br9RYrnEkWUwgYs+wwJpXndsLTEnxcc+D-m3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

I've searched the spec to make sure this hasn't been solved yet and
apparently it had not, but please let me know if I'm wrong.

I remember last year in my previous company struggling with the fact
there was no way to include the actual invalid value as part of the
message interpolation process. This is needed in many scenarios,
especially when the actual invalid value is somehow derived or
computed and the only way to report the error is by returning it in
the interpolated message.

Do you guys see any value in providing support for that in the spec?

Regards,
Michael

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep  6 14:50:17 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:50:17 -0300
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: <CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to including them.

Regards,
Michael

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com> 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 misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep  6 14:52:28 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:52:28 -0300
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: <CAAWA2oVvsBbzKnH+5Pqnb_02CJ9xjMDY2-CpzGF1nWgZVpGjvQ@mail.gmail.com>

LGTM (even though too late)

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:34 AM, 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

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep  6 14:54:42 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 15:54:42 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Promote fail fast?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM2hKXzApYMEsQjuQiY08rd2y2AfhiUWSrdqqGhqVJbc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oVtPUjwq6kwGNEuZ5BSWk=vrC2ttWxSCN48VcQKtbk2jg@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, I've faced scenarios where fail-fast would have been very useful.
BVAL-214 should take this into account too if we move forward with
this proposal.

Regards,
Michael

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Sep  6 16:43:31 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:43:31 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Invalid value interpolation
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oUcZ3J7Br9RYrnEkWUwgYs+wwJpXndsLTEnxcc+D-m3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAWA2oUcZ3J7Br9RYrnEkWUwgYs+wwJpXndsLTEnxcc+D-m3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9pu5=snJsj6AgfuApg2jyUhSvxG=+EVTOhi61xLZmTdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

This should work with EL based interpolation as of BV 1.1, using the
expression ${validatedValue}.

Check 5.3.1.3. "Message expressions using Expression Language (EL)" [1].
Seems like this should do the trick, or is there anything missing for your
use case?

Thanks,

--Gunnar

[1] http://beanvalidation.org/1.1/spec/#message-expressions


2016-09-06 20:47 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I've searched the spec to make sure this hasn't been solved yet and
> apparently it had not, but please let me know if I'm wrong.
>
> I remember last year in my previous company struggling with the fact
> there was no way to include the actual invalid value as part of the
> message interpolation process. This is needed in many scenarios,
> especially when the actual invalid value is somehow derived or
> computed and the only way to report the error is by returning it in
> the interpolated message.
>
> Do you guys see any value in providing support for that in the spec?
>
> Regards,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160906/a7412544/attachment-0001.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Thu Sep  8 01:44:31 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:44:31 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>

I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints directly to
the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.

However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback from
the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in the
spec.

2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> +1 to including them.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com> 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
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160908/aefbe1c0/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Fri Sep  9 05:34:32 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 11:34:32 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback according
to your experience?
Thanks!

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <christian at kaltepoth.de>
wrote:

> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints directly
> to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>
> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback from
> the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in the
> spec.
>
> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>
>> +1 to including them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160909/40aacd91/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Fri Sep  9 05:40:04 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 11:40:04 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-oH5AkP1d6e8g7B++2QPY3F0w1peVBf8kWeSCoVMJbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>
	<CADGJaX-oH5AkP1d6e8g7B++2QPY3F0w1peVBf8kWeSCoVMJbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM3KoQk0Z-yxO5jSkN9kxNrkeb1QXW6UDEixV6p+P7CqBA@mail.gmail.com>

Hendrik, excellent idea the logo. Curiosity, why a Duke that stamps bean? I
think the concept to create the logo is another subject that requires the
community feedback (an original cool logo or a business / technical concept
around BV ?).

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:

> Please still use a fork and send pull requests from that.
>
> We usually don't have feature branches in the "blessed" upstream repos,
> only if several people happen to work together on a single "thing" for a
> longer period of time.
>
> 2016-09-02 13:57 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>
>> Cool!
>>
>> Question: Should we still use forks or can we work with features branches
>> directly in then bean validation repos?
>>
>> Hendrik
>>
>> Am 02.09.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>
>> Hi Hendrik,
>>
>> Great ideas! Further details inline.
>>
>> 2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation
>>> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I
>>> asked myself if I can become member of the team, too.
>>>
>>
>> I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub
>> organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your
>> GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under
>> the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on
>> commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.
>>
>> I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But
>> please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull
>> requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our
>> core principles really.
>>
>> In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this
>>> at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org. I know an illustrator that did
>>> a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting
>>> machines: He created all the duke animations (
>>> http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I would
>>> love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke
>>> that stamps beans. What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been bugging
>> me for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some details.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hendrik
>>>
>>
>> --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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160909/d22dfb81/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Sep 13 05:21:19 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:21:19 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM3KoQk0Z-yxO5jSkN9kxNrkeb1QXW6UDEixV6p+P7CqBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>
	<CADGJaX-oH5AkP1d6e8g7B++2QPY3F0w1peVBf8kWeSCoVMJbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3KoQk0Z-yxO5jSkN9kxNrkeb1QXW6UDEixV6p+P7CqBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_-RpCtPMCrjN=JzyaSi_HZKD1b1FPKbNk17yWqnVJKAw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

> Curiosity, why a Duke that stamps bean?

I think the idea is to symbolize the approval/validation of beans. I like
the idea, it's kind of funny for "insiders", and those not getting it still
should find the Duke an attractive being ;)

Personally I think it's fine if we - the EG and those discussing on this
list - like and get behind one logo. Let's keep surveys and alike for stuff
where we really need some input based on people's experiences with
validation in practice.

Hendrik, so if your friend could help out with this and create a logo for
us, that'd be awesome. The only requirement really would be that it is
provided with a suitable license, the 3-clause BSD license that the
original is licensed under being the preferred option.

Thanks a lot for driving this,

--Gunnar





2016-09-09 11:40 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> Hendrik, excellent idea the logo. Curiosity, why a Duke that stamps bean?
> I think the concept to create the logo is another subject that requires the
> community feedback (an original cool logo or a business / technical concept
> around BV ?).
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Please still use a fork and send pull requests from that.
>>
>> We usually don't have feature branches in the "blessed" upstream repos,
>> only if several people happen to work together on a single "thing" for a
>> longer period of time.
>>
>> 2016-09-02 13:57 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>
>>> Cool!
>>>
>>> Question: Should we still use forks or can we work with features
>>> branches directly in then bean validation repos?
>>>
>>> Hendrik
>>>
>>> Am 02.09.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>>
>>> Hi Hendrik,
>>>
>>> Great ideas! Further details inline.
>>>
>>> 2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation
>>>> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I
>>>> asked myself if I can become member of the team, too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub
>>> organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your
>>> GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under
>>> the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on
>>> commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.
>>>
>>> I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But
>>> please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull
>>> requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our
>>> core principles really.
>>>
>>> In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use this
>>>> at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org. I know an illustrator that
>>>> did a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne voting
>>>> machines: He created all the duke animations (
>>>> http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I would
>>>> love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about a Duke
>>>> that stamps beans. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been bugging
>>> me for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some details.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Hendrik
>>>>
>>>
>>> --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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160913/32971510/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Tue Sep 13 06:55:51 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 12:55:51 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] The GitHub Team
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_-RpCtPMCrjN=JzyaSi_HZKD1b1FPKbNk17yWqnVJKAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A6AA6887-44BB-48BF-8E3C-A273117CFDD4@me.com>
	<CADGJaX_nVWBmxyiEnQb1kthkCkWNDi7uVWQ-a4j4eCTKSy8mpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<D366E265-F31F-4C3A-8D23-1DAB1D4519ED@me.com>
	<CADGJaX-oH5AkP1d6e8g7B++2QPY3F0w1peVBf8kWeSCoVMJbnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3KoQk0Z-yxO5jSkN9kxNrkeb1QXW6UDEixV6p+P7CqBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_-RpCtPMCrjN=JzyaSi_HZKD1b1FPKbNk17yWqnVJKAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM1VpBvPVVL54ZZn=xGbTac9iUwfm9Nhefd=Mxve4GFRFA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the feedback Gunnar. The Duke it's fine for me too :)

Am 13.09.2016 11:21 schrieb "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Hi,
>
> > Curiosity, why a Duke that stamps bean?
>
> I think the idea is to symbolize the approval/validation of beans. I like
> the idea, it's kind of funny for "insiders", and those not getting it still
> should find the Duke an attractive being ;)
>
> Personally I think it's fine if we - the EG and those discussing on this
> list - like and get behind one logo. Let's keep surveys and alike for stuff
> where we really need some input based on people's experiences with
> validation in practice.
>
> Hendrik, so if your friend could help out with this and create a logo for
> us, that'd be awesome. The only requirement really would be that it is
> provided with a suitable license, the 3-clause BSD license that the
> original is licensed under being the preferred option.
>
> Thanks a lot for driving this,
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-09-09 11:40 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hendrik, excellent idea the logo. Curiosity, why a Duke that stamps bean?
>> I think the concept to create the logo is another subject that requires the
>> community feedback (an original cool logo or a business / technical concept
>> around BV ?).
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please still use a fork and send pull requests from that.
>>>
>>> We usually don't have feature branches in the "blessed" upstream repos,
>>> only if several people happen to work together on a single "thing" for a
>>> longer period of time.
>>>
>>> 2016-09-02 13:57 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>>
>>>> Cool!
>>>>
>>>> Question: Should we still use forks or can we work with features
>>>> branches directly in then bean validation repos?
>>>>
>>>> Hendrik
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.09.2016 um 09:27 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hendrik,
>>>>
>>>> Great ideas! Further details inline.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-09-01 16:30 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> currently all JBV repos are part of https://github.com/beanvalidation
>>>>> which is really great.  3 people are part of this team at GitHub and I
>>>>> asked myself if I can become member of the team, too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've set up a new team "eg-members" under the Bean Validation GitHub
>>>> organization and sent you an invite for it (other EG members give me your
>>>> GitHub handle if you want to be in there, too). This will show you under
>>>> the list of org members and also allows to summon other experts's input on
>>>> commits/PRs using the "@eg-members" alias.
>>>>
>>>> I've also granted write access to that team for the relevant repos. But
>>>> please *never* push your own commits, instead always go through pull
>>>> requests reviewed by other members. Collective code review is one of our
>>>> core principles really.
>>>>
>>>> In addition I think that we need a logo for the JSR :) We could use
>>>>> this at Github, Twitter & beanvalidation.org. I know an illustrator
>>>>> that did a lot of Java-related images for me. If you know the JavaOne
>>>>> voting machines: He created all the duke animations (
>>>>> http://www.guigarage.com/2016/01/the-javaone-voting-machine/). I
>>>>> would love to ask him for a logo for the JRS. Currently I?m thinking about
>>>>> a Duke that stamps beans. What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, personally I'd love to have a log, the lack of one has been
>>>> bugging me for quite a while. I'll reply to you off-list to sort out some
>>>> details.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hendrik
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160913/7feeb6aa/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 14 02:38:58 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 08:38:58 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] New EG member: Otavio Santana
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8jRCnpRJvWCGJyno_a-rV8_d9J5ZB-ZUZnWxTo5GoG_A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Please join me in welcoming our newest EG member, Otavio Santana.

Besides other things, Otavia is a JUG Leader in Brazil, Java Champion,
expert in several specifications and JCP executive member.

Otavia, it's great to have you as part of the team. If you like, introduce
yourself in more depth and let us know what your wishes and ideas
are towards BV 2.0.

Cheers and welcome again,

--Gunnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160914/e7ee1154/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 14 05:48:01 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:48:01 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.

A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse based
on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more actionable for
people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited) or using Google
Forms [1], which is my preference.

I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
about their wishes, too).

It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.

Cheers,

--Gunnar

[1] https://docs.google.com/forms/


2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback according
> to your experience?
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>
>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints directly
>> to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>
>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback from
>> the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in the
>> spec.
>>
>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +1 to including them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christian Kaltepoth
>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160914/9af02ca9/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 14 05:52:35 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:52:35 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>

Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the spec
for it already.

I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from HV 3.x
(proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy constraint
instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.

2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>
> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>
> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
> good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
> course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
> about their wishes, too).
>
> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>
>
> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback according
>> to your experience?
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints directly
>>> to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>
>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback from
>>> the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in the
>>> spec.
>>>
>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160914/fb73ecd5/attachment-0001.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Wed Sep 14 06:02:54 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:02:54 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM1xTRt9FLZRu+j817s_NsJ0tXSrkh6PGkEmrFDeQdMv2w@mail.gmail.com>

I agree about @Length. It was listed only because of the frequency.  I'd
limit the addition to @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the spec
> for it already.
>
> I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from HV
> 3.x (proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy
> constraint instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.
>
> 2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>>
>> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
>> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
>> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
>> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>>
>> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
>> good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
>> course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
>> about their wishes, too).
>>
>> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback
>>> according to your experience?
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints
>>>> directly to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>
>>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback
>>>> from the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in
>>>> the spec.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160914/4e47c449/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Sep 15 06:45:51 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:45:51 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM1xTRt9FLZRu+j817s_NsJ0tXSrkh6PGkEmrFDeQdMv2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM1xTRt9FLZRu+j817s_NsJ0tXSrkh6PGkEmrFDeQdMv2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9GZvw2yJgD-89WSRCpu5v+8QEENwazp-waXuwk4JGK9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I've created a survey using Google Forms on our blog (staging atm.):
http://staging.beanvalidation.org/news/2016/09/15/which-constraints-to-add/

Feedback welcome. Unless I hear back otherwise, I'll push it to the
production site tomorrow and then let's announce it on Twitter to get some
answers. I'd leave it open for two weeks (allowing people to reply after J1
which is next week), which should be plenty of time.

One question I have is should we allow anonymous voting or require logging
in via Google. The latter prevents double votes, but it raises the level
for participation and don't think people feel motivated to vote several
times on this topic really.

Andy thoughts?

Thanks,

--Gunnar


2016-09-14 12:02 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> I agree about @Length. It was listed only because of the frequency.  I'd
> limit the addition to @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the
>> spec for it already.
>>
>> I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from HV
>> 3.x (proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy
>> constraint instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.
>>
>> 2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>>>
>>> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
>>> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
>>> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
>>> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>>>
>>> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
>>> good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
>>> course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
>>> about their wishes, too).
>>>
>>> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --Gunnar
>>>
>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback
>>>> according to your experience?
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>>>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints
>>>>> directly to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback
>>>>> from the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in
>>>>> the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20160915/6932623b/attachment-0001.html 

From hendrik.ebbers at me.com  Thu Sep 15 08:48:35 2016
From: hendrik.ebbers at me.com (Hendrik Ebbers)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 05:48:35 -0700
Subject: [bv-dev] Rake
Message-ID: <881944BE-B68D-4F11-9902-9ABB209EA031@me.com>

Hi all,

any idea how to install rake on a mac. Based on the readme for the bean validation.org repo I ended in this:

Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$ rake check
/Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:105: warning: Insecure world writable dir /usr/local in PATH, mode 040777
Bundler gem not installed. Run 'gem install bundler first'
Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$ rake preview
bundle exec awestruct -d
/Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:133: warning: Insecure world writable dir /usr/local in PATH, mode 040777
Using profile: development
Generating site: http://localhost:4242
bundler: failed to load command: awestruct (/Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bin/awestruct)
LoadError: Could not open library 'libc.dylib': dlopen(libc.dylib, 5): image not found
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:133:in `block in ffi_lib'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:100:in `map'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:100:in `ffi_lib'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:5:in `<module:LibC>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:3:in `<module:Native>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:2:in `<module:SassC>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:1:in `<top (required)>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:32:in `require_relative'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:32:in `<module:Native>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:4:in `<module:SassC>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:3:in `<top (required)>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc.rb:5:in `require_relative'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc.rb:5:in `<top (required)>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/_ext/pipeline.rb:3:in `require'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/_ext/pipeline.rb:3:in `load_pipeline'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:254:in `eval'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:254:in `load_pipeline'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:67:in `run'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/cli/generate.rb:21:in `run'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/cli/invoker.rb:128:in `invoke_generate'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/cli/invoker.rb:52:in `invoke!'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/bin/awestruct:9:in `<top (required)>'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bin/awestruct:23:in `load'
  /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bin/awestruct:23:in `<top (required)>'
rake aborted!
ERROR: Running Awestruct failed.
/Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:133:in `run_awestruct'
/Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:61:in `block in <top (required)>'
Tasks: TOP => preview
(See full trace by running task with --trace)
Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160915/f5d0d5d9/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Sep 15 09:19:00 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:19:00 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Rake
In-Reply-To: <881944BE-B68D-4F11-9902-9ABB209EA031@me.com>
References: <881944BE-B68D-4F11-9902-9ABB209EA031@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-fL3CaY_RDo6ggZ9Lp10PR+DfpE+6DmMn-LZY6MvEcGg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I recommend to use RVM (https://rvm.io/) and then what's called a "gemset"
for the dependencies of this specific project. I found that very helpful to
keep different Ruby versions and dependencies of different project
separated.

>From the output you posted it seems bundler is missing. Install it via "gem
install bundler". And then "rake setup[local]".

Just let me know if you have further problems with it.

--Gunnar


2016-09-15 14:48 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> any idea how to install rake on a mac. Based on the readme for the bean
> validation.org repo I ended in this:
>
> Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$ rake check
> /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:105: warning:
> Insecure world writable dir /usr/local in PATH, mode 040777
> Bundler gem not installed. Run 'gem install bundler first'
> Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$ rake preview
> bundle exec awestruct -d
> /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:133: warning:
> Insecure world writable dir /usr/local in PATH, mode 040777
> Using profile: development
> Generating site: http://localhost:4242
> bundler: failed to load command: awestruct (/Users/hendrikebbers/git/bean
> validation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.0.0/bin/awestruct)
> LoadError: Could not open library 'libc.dylib': dlopen(libc.dylib, 5):
> image not found
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:133:in `block in ffi_lib'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:100:in `map'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/ffi-1.9.10/lib/ffi/library.rb:100:in `ffi_lib'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:5:in `<module:LibC>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:3:in `<module:Native>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:2:in `<module:SassC>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native/lib_c.rb:1:in `<top (required)>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:32:in `require_relative'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:32:in `<module:Native>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:4:in `<module:SassC>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc/native.rb:3:in `<top (required)>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc.rb:5:in `require_relative'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/gems/sassc-1.8.4/lib/sassc.rb:5:in `<top (required)>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/_ext/pipeline.rb:3:in
> `require'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/_ext/pipeline.rb:3:in
> `load_pipeline'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:254:in
> `eval'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:254:in
> `load_pipeline'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/engine.rb:67:in
> `run'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/
> cli/generate.rb:21:in `run'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/
> cli/invoker.rb:128:in `invoke_generate'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/lib/awestruct/cli/invoker.rb:52:in
> `invoke!'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bundler/gems/awestruct-0dbfd2ad2061/bin/awestruct:9:in `<top
> (required)>'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bin/awestruct:23:in `load'
>   /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/.bundle/ruby/2.
> 0.0/bin/awestruct:23:in `<top (required)>'
> rake aborted!
> ERROR: Running Awestruct failed.
> /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:133:in
> `run_awestruct'
> /Users/hendrikebbers/git/beanvalidation.org/Rakefile:61:in `block in <top
> (required)>'
> Tasks: TOP => preview
> (See full trace by running task with --trace)
> Hendriks-MacBook-Pro-2:beanvalidation.org hendrikebbers$
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160915/c26ae933/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Sep 15 11:22:38 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:22:38 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Meeting at JavaOne?
In-Reply-To: <94685A7A-5320-4291-9EEC-F449DA9DD342@me.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<94685A7A-5320-4291-9EEC-F449DA9DD342@me.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-89N+OE-8UuaiWPxFexWkuqDsFAjPj-dJ1xQnCf3mwPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

JavaOne is approaching quickly and I just wanted to quickly sync on the
Hackergarten event (as I won't be there).

It's my understanding that Michael and Otavio will be leading it, right? Do
you have any kind of agenda or plan of the things you'd like to discuss
during this event?

I think it'd be nice to discuss the proposals done already (the one on
containers/collections being the most prominent one) and of course gather
feedback in general (e.g. by pointing people to the constraint survey or
the general roadmap of issues as described in the JSR itself and as
expressed by issues in the BVAL tracker assigned to 2.x).

If you want to discuss anything prior to the event just let me know (we
also can do a quick Hangout if you like). Many thanks for driving this
initiative, that's much appreciated!

Looking forward to any feedback and outcome from this event,

--Gunnar


2016-09-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I will be at J1 and will attend the hackergarten. I know David and can
> chat with him about the proposal (maybe even before J1). I will have a
> deeper look at this one the next days.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hendrik
>
>
> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it
> should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to
> meet and exchange.
>
> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday the
> 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative, Michael!
>
> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written by
> then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating
> this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David
> Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be
> there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
>
> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g.
> javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues
> around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
>
> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation
> (BVAL-520, [4])
> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV with
> JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
>
> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it would
> be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
>
> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with
> forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K
> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248
> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515
> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520
> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160915/ce222be1/attachment.html 

From otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com  Thu Sep 15 18:27:12 2016
From: otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ot=C3=A1vio_Gon=C3=A7alves_de_Santana?=)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:27:12 -0700
Subject: [bv-dev] Meeting at JavaOne?
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR2G5yk_5O7+Weuu9NTnwH5WADHS-4KrFh3aJD3m3oVpgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<94685A7A-5320-4291-9EEC-F449DA9DD342@me.com>
	<CADGJaX-89N+OE-8UuaiWPxFexWkuqDsFAjPj-dJ1xQnCf3mwPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR2G5yk_5O7+Weuu9NTnwH5WADHS-4KrFh3aJD3m3oVpgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPc8kR12Hm3X0hbHQ-OupyDQwdYChu227RGBLGv1HNY9pdb_gg@mail.gmail.com>

Just trying to send the email again.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 Sep 2016 08:24, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > JavaOne is approaching quickly and I just wanted to quickly sync on the
> Hackergarten event (as I won't be there).
> >
> > It's my understanding that Michael and Otavio will be leading it, right?
> Do you have any kind of agenda or plan of the things you'd like to discuss
> during this event?
> Yes, we'll be there.
> Initially, the main goal of this JSR, the current issue and then we're
> open to hear suggestion. The result I'll write an email about it.
> >
> > I think it'd be nice to discuss the proposals done already (the one on
> containers/collections being the most prominent one) and of course gather
> feedback in general (e.g. by pointing people to the constraint survey or
> the general roadmap of issues as described in the JSR itself and as
> expressed by issues in the BVAL tracker assigned to 2.x).
> >sure, that's good point.
>
> > If you want to discuss anything prior to the event just let me know (we
> also can do a quick Hangout if you like). Many thanks for driving this
> initiative, that's much appreciated!
> > Yes, when do you can?
> I'm free on Saturday. Please send us a Google invite about it. I'm
> currently at San Francisco.
>
> > Looking forward to any feedback and outcome from this event,
> >
> > --Gunnar
> >
> >
> > 2016-09-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I will be at J1 and will attend the hackergarten. I know David and can
> chat with him about the proposal (maybe even before J1). I will have a
> deeper look at this one the next days.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Hendrik
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it
> should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to
> meet and exchange.
> >>>
> >>> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday
> the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative,
> Michael!
> >>>
> >>> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written
> by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating
> this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David
> Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be
> there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
> >>>
> >>> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g.
> javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues
> around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
> >>>
> >>> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation
> (BVAL-520, [4])
> >>> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV
> with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
> >>> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
> >>>
> >>> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it
> would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
> >>>
> >>> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with
> forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> --Gunnar
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K
> >>> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248
> >>> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515
> >>> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520
> >>> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
>


-- 
Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana


twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
site:     *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160915/01c4b5d6/attachment.html 

From otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com  Thu Sep 15 19:21:40 2016
From: otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ot=C3=A1vio_Gon=C3=A7alves_de_Santana?=)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:21:40 -0700
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR2N7Wisdu3qbwt4FLXrmwAvwvaPaxW8op7cQV-iFBj=aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM1xTRt9FLZRu+j817s_NsJ0tXSrkh6PGkEmrFDeQdMv2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX9GZvw2yJgD-89WSRCpu5v+8QEENwazp-waXuwk4JGK9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR2N7Wisdu3qbwt4FLXrmwAvwvaPaxW8op7cQV-iFBj=aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPc8kR1zFdqEduqyXRbOFSXpEaNJiMirJ_Hrw+sYHb7fj5fBxg@mail.gmail.com>

I sent to adopt JSR email list and share it on social media.
https://twitter.com/otaviojava/status/776549007799701504

On 15 Sep 2016 12:00, "Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana" <
otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nice form!!
> I'm sharing it in adopt JSR program email list.
>
> On 15 Sep 2016 03:46, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've created a survey using Google Forms on our blog (staging atm.):
>> http://staging.beanvalidation.org/news/2016/09/15/
>> which-constraints-to-add/
>>
>> Feedback welcome. Unless I hear back otherwise, I'll push it to the
>> production site tomorrow and then let's announce it on Twitter to get some
>> answers. I'd leave it open for two weeks (allowing people to reply after J1
>> which is next week), which should be plenty of time.
>>
>> One question I have is should we allow anonymous voting or require
>> logging in via Google. The latter prevents double votes, but it raises the
>> level for participation and don't think people feel motivated to vote
>> several times on this topic really.
>>
>> Andy thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-14 12:02 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> I agree about @Length. It was listed only because of the frequency.  I'd
>>> limit the addition to @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the
>>>> spec for it already.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from HV
>>>> 3.x (proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy
>>>> constraint instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>>>>>
>>>>> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
>>>>> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
>>>>> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
>>>>> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
>>>>> good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
>>>>> course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
>>>>> about their wishes, too).
>>>>>
>>>>> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> --Gunnar
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback
>>>>>> according to your experience?
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>>>>>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints
>>>>>>> directly to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback
>>>>>>> from the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in
>>>>>>> the spec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160915/5c30a999/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Sep 16 01:47:09 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:47:09 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR1zFdqEduqyXRbOFSXpEaNJiMirJ_Hrw+sYHb7fj5fBxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUPYM3tnd=jrpi-2Tqs9Uy8LR7Ch=nXV2uyhE6fp1qmbZ1ssA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUWb=4sfq2an42EyXn1tkpupFevoxuq0aoSMU+TsMhS4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6wVAEmR3gg9j5ybJTaj9ijaeYXTUU-zjEZnFFJ-L2xJSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM3H-3Yy2H4MCyJFNKAAYvD-ZCFNtA3Ft4H5X-Qu7oCSSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-XLmAm4bWiks2koOV7XAX8UsVjF2NN+=6wgxzQ_rA=aA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_2JKzmK5S7SEuwS_66fKxQikq0ukTBTB8uEF-MV4Cgkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM1xTRt9FLZRu+j817s_NsJ0tXSrkh6PGkEmrFDeQdMv2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX9GZvw2yJgD-89WSRCpu5v+8QEENwazp-waXuwk4JGK9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR2N7Wisdu3qbwt4FLXrmwAvwvaPaxW8op7cQV-iFBj=aw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR1zFdqEduqyXRbOFSXpEaNJiMirJ_Hrw+sYHb7fj5fBxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX8P5mmZ9GXcRktibXzs_6DhE8YtLEXo_ZytcKnnYztw5A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Ah, I guess this was a bit unclear: the staging.beanvalidation.org URL
points the staging/testing instance of the website, useful if we want to
discuss or review posts before publishing them. I meant to wait for your
opinions before pushing the button and announcing it :)

But as the news is out now, I've merged it to production:
http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/09/15/which-constraints-to-add/

Please only share this link on social media etc. (and generally avoid
sharing links to staging).

Thanks,

--Gunnar


2016-09-16 1:21 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com>:

> I sent to adopt JSR email list and share it on social media.
> https://twitter.com/otaviojava/status/776549007799701504
>
> On 15 Sep 2016 12:00, "Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana" <
> otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nice form!!
>> I'm sharing it in adopt JSR program email list.
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2016 03:46, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've created a survey using Google Forms on our blog (staging atm.):
>>> http://staging.beanvalidation.org/news/2016/09/15/whi
>>> ch-constraints-to-add/
>>>
>>> Feedback welcome. Unless I hear back otherwise, I'll push it to the
>>> production site tomorrow and then let's announce it on Twitter to get some
>>> answers. I'd leave it open for two weeks (allowing people to reply after J1
>>> which is next week), which should be plenty of time.
>>>
>>> One question I have is should we allow anonymous voting or require
>>> logging in via Google. The latter prevents double votes, but it raises the
>>> level for participation and don't think people feel motivated to vote
>>> several times on this topic really.
>>>
>>> Andy thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --Gunnar
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-09-14 12:02 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I agree about @Length. It was listed only because of the frequency.
>>>> I'd limit the addition to @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the
>>>>> spec for it already.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from
>>>>> HV 3.x (proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy
>>>>> constraint instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
>>>>>> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
>>>>>> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
>>>>>> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey
>>>>>> looks good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1
>>>>>> (of course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to
>>>>>> learn about their wishes, too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Gunnar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback
>>>>>>> according to your experience?
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>>>>>>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints
>>>>>>>> directly to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback
>>>>>>>> from the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in
>>>>>>>> the spec.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>>>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>>>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160916/c6a4e554/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Sep 16 06:38:59 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:38:59 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Meeting at JavaOne?
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR12Hm3X0hbHQ-OupyDQwdYChu227RGBLGv1HNY9pdb_gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX_4=woTCyYLMPDio6Y7u2A-uaeQ2B2j=UU0BdUw+oVteg@mail.gmail.com>
	<94685A7A-5320-4291-9EEC-F449DA9DD342@me.com>
	<CADGJaX-89N+OE-8UuaiWPxFexWkuqDsFAjPj-dJ1xQnCf3mwPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR2G5yk_5O7+Weuu9NTnwH5WADHS-4KrFh3aJD3m3oVpgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR12Hm3X0hbHQ-OupyDQwdYChu227RGBLGv1HNY9pdb_gg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9CdGhjhKfed7hZ6ov_u745X5YR0bbADUjBejdUUpbyKw@mail.gmail.com>

2016-09-16 0:27 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com>:

> Just trying to send the email again.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
> otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Sep 2016 08:24, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > JavaOne is approaching quickly and I just wanted to quickly sync on the
>> Hackergarten event (as I won't be there).
>> >
>> > It's my understanding that Michael and Otavio will be leading it,
>> right? Do you have any kind of agenda or plan of the things you'd like to
>> discuss during this event?
>> Yes, we'll be there.
>> Initially, the main goal of this JSR, the current issue and then we're
>> open to hear suggestion. The result I'll write an email about it.
>>
> Ok, cool.

>
>> >
>> > I think it'd be nice to discuss the proposals done already (the one on
>> containers/collections being the most prominent one) and of course gather
>> feedback in general (e.g. by pointing people to the constraint survey or
>> the general roadmap of issues as described in the JSR itself and as
>> expressed by issues in the BVAL tracker assigned to 2.x).
>> >sure, that's good point.
>>
>> > If you want to discuss anything prior to the event just let me know (we
>> also can do a quick Hangout if you like). Many thanks for driving this
>> initiative, that's much appreciated!
>> > Yes, when do you can?
>> I'm free on Saturday. Please send us a Google invite about it. I'm
>> currently at San Francisco.
>>
>
The weekend will be tough for me to do.

How about Monday morning your time:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2016&month=9&day=19&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=307&p2=224

> Looking forward to any feedback and outcome from this event,
>> >
>> > --Gunnar
>> >
>> >
>> > 2016-09-01 16:31 GMT+02:00 Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I will be at J1 and will attend the hackergarten. I know David and can
>> chat with him about the proposal (maybe even before J1). I will have a
>> deeper look at this one the next days.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Hendrik
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Am 01.09.2016 um 10:14 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Unfortunately I won't be able to attend JavaOne myself, but still it
>> should be a great opportunity for members of the BV EG and community to
>> meet and exchange.
>> >>>
>> >>> As per [1] there is a BV 2.0 Hackergarten event scheduled for Tuesday
>> the 20th, led by Michael Nascimento. Thanks for taking this initiative,
>> Michael!
>> >>>
>> >>> Interesting things to discuss and explore might be proposals written
>> by then (e.g. the one around List<@Email>, Emmanuel is working on updating
>> this one) and things like ordering of constraints (BVAL-248, [2]) or David
>> Blevins' proposal around using Lambdas (BVAL-515, [3]). David should be
>> there, so make sure to get hold of him :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Another interesting topic is integration with other specs/techs (e.g.
>> javax.money or JavaFX). Specifically, there are several pending issues
>> around the integration of BV and JAX-RS:
>> >>>
>> >>> * Provides means to disable BV during JAX-RS lifecycle validation
>> (BVAL-520, [4])
>> >>> * Provide facility for more flexible HTTP error codes when using BV
>> with JAX-RS (BVAL-518, [5])
>> >>> * Pass the request locale to BV's MessageInterpolator
>> >>>
>> >>> Mostly these things would have to be done on the JAX-RS side, so it
>> would be great to have a chat with them if there is the chance for it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Apart from that, essentially anything would be great which helps with
>> forming a picture of the community's needs and requirements.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> --Gunnar
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] http://linkis.com/community.oracle.com/bhe4K
>> >>> [2] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-248
>> >>> [3] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-515
>> >>> [4] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-520
>> >>> [5] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-518
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana
>
>
> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
> site:     *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160916/667b3253/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Mon Sep 19 07:26:50 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:26:50 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Website: Removed proposals from BV 1.1
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_KPiyWRKiC5uE2odUJ-so+Kx4eASUVXnKNzRk4sddYdw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We still had several proposal documents from the 1.1 revision laying around
on the website. I've removed those now (they are still in the Git history
for historical purposes of course).

Hendrik stepped up and converted all current proposals into AsciiDoc.
Thanks a lot!

Cheers,

--Gunnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160919/cd7ad5ec/attachment.html 

From emmanuel at hibernate.org  Mon Sep 19 07:28:20 2016
From: emmanuel at hibernate.org (Emmanuel Bernard)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:28:20 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
Message-ID: <20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>

This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.

Emmanuel

On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>
>Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>elements to validate them.
>
>This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>
>This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>
>Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>
>In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>
>The capability to define custom containers.
>
>The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>
>The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
>subclasses of containers.
>
>@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>transition.
>
>And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>less elaborated at this stage).
>
>Emmanuel
>_______________________________________________
>beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Mon Sep 19 07:31:09 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:31:09 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1

If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit more
complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.

Thanks!

2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:

> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
> >
> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
> >elements to validate them.
> >
> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
> >
> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
> >
> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
> >
> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
> >
> >The capability to define custom containers.
> >
> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
> >
> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
> >subclasses of containers.
> >
> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
> >transition.
> >
> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
> >less elaborated at this stage).
> >
> >Emmanuel
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/20160919/92ca3b4b/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Mon Sep 19 09:55:05 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:55:05 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Finally circling back to this one, many thanks for all your comments! Sorry
for the long delay, I was sidetracked with a conference and some other
things.

To those asking about support for Period or Duration, how would that look
like exactly? I reckon we'd need some new constraints along the lines of
@MinDuration(value=6000, unit=SECOND)? What would be a use case for
validating durations like this? I can somehow see it, but it seems rather
specialized to me.

> But if we design the TimeProvider this way, adding something to the
method signature won't be possible in the future. However, I don't think
this is a real problem. Unless someone comes up with some use case.

It's a good point. I'd dislike adding a parameter object without any
properties, "just in case", though. But this is a case where Java 8 default
methods are helpful: Should we ever see the need for some context parameter
in a subsequent revision, we can add a new method for this and let it
delegate to the parameterless one by default.

> If we support the "Year" type, we should also support "YearMonth". This
type is not so widely used, but it feels strange to not support it if we
support "Year".

Yes, I think you are right.

> Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user to
specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?

That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically brought up
with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466. It seems sensible to
add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard time
though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we could find
something more descriptive?

Btw. Michael (who has been part of the JSR 310 EG) pointed out that
TimeProvider should return a Clock.

--Gunnar


2016-09-06 6:53 GMT+02:00 Christian Kaltepoth <christian at kaltepoth.de>:

> Hey all,
>
> I just reviewed the proposal in more detail. I really like it. Great work.
> Some comments:
>
> *Make current time and timezone customizable*
> I also don't see a use case for making the retrieval more contextual. But
> if we design the TimeProvider this way, adding something to the method
> signature won't be possible in the future. However, I don't think this is a
> real problem. Unless someone comes up with some use case.
>
> *Other JSR 310 types to support*
> If we support the "Year" type, we should also support "YearMonth". This
> type is not so widely used, but it feels strange to not support it if we
> support "Year".
>
>
> Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
> YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user to
> specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid? I'm
> thinking of something like:
>
> @Past( inclusive=true )
> private LocalDate someDate;     // valid if someDate <= today
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Christian
>
>
> 2016-09-01 12:40 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
> otaviojava at java.net>:
>
>> Period or Duration is a good idea. Once it's Java 8 and BV 2.0 will
>> support it. IMHO makes sense has support to it.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers at me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I like the the proposal :)
>>> Currently it do not support new data types like Period or Duration
>>> (implementations of TemporalAmount). But for this types new annotations /
>>> constraints are needed. The question is if this should be supported by the
>>> JSR, too.
>>>
>>> Am 30.08.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>>
>>> 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/blo
>>>> b/production/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana
>>
>>
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
>> site:     *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160919/ea0c8e98/attachment-0001.html 

From otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com  Mon Sep 19 10:29:44 2016
From: otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ot=C3=A1vio_Gon=C3=A7alves_de_Santana?=)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 07:29:44 -0700
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPc8kR1MrR9JEdwsCEMqE=PYuvZx9nz7gRBY6ZODQ1k2SSyWgA@mail.gmail.com>

That's fine to me.

On 19 Sep 2016 4:31 a.m., "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
> more complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>
>> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
>> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>> >
>> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>> >elements to validate them.
>> >
>> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>> >
>> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>> >
>> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>> >
>> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>> >
>> >The capability to define custom containers.
>> >
>> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>> >
>> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
>> >subclasses of containers.
>> >
>> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>> >transition.
>> >
>> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>> >less elaborated at this stage).
>> >
>> >Emmanuel
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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/20160919/3d1e61da/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Fri Sep 23 01:18:08 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:18:08 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Gunnar, Hey all,


> But if we design the TimeProvider this way, adding something to the
> method signature won't be possible in the future. However, I don't think
> this is a real problem. Unless someone comes up with some use case.
>
> It's a good point. I'd dislike adding a parameter object without any
> properties, "just in case", though. But this is a case where Java 8
> default methods are helpful: Should we ever see the need for some context
> parameter in a subsequent revision, we can add a new method for this and
> let it delegate to the parameterless one by default.
>

Sure, adding an empty parameter object would be a bad idea. And as I
mentioned before I cannot imagine any use case for providing additional
information to the provider. And if we want to add something in later spec
versions, we could use default methods as you described.


> Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
> YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user to
> specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
>
> That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically brought up
> with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466. It seems sensible
> to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
> non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard time
> though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we could find
> something more descriptive?
>

I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)


Btw. Michael (who has been part of the JSR 310 EG) pointed out that
> TimeProvider should return a Clock.
>

I agree. We should use Clock.


Christian


-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160923/639de345/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Fri Sep 23 01:59:48 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:59:48 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX9QViNUMmTuOWGWfs2MSSZMqf6v+f0D1Gw+MkKYX5qLkw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Michael mit with Stephen Colebourne during J1 this week and will write an
updated proposal around the date/time support based on the current one and
their discussions. Looking forward to it :)

--Gunnar



2016-09-23 7:18 GMT+02:00 Christian Kaltepoth <christian at kaltepoth.de>:

> Hey Gunnar, Hey all,
>
>
> > But if we design the TimeProvider this way, adding something to the
>> method signature won't be possible in the future. However, I don't think
>> this is a real problem. Unless someone comes up with some use case.
>>
>> It's a good point. I'd dislike adding a parameter object without any
>> properties, "just in case", though. But this is a case where Java 8
>> default methods are helpful: Should we ever see the need for some context
>> parameter in a subsequent revision, we can add a new method for this and
>> let it delegate to the parameterless one by default.
>>
>
> Sure, adding an empty parameter object would be a bad idea. And as I
> mentioned before I cannot imagine any use case for providing additional
> information to the provider. And if we want to add something in later spec
> versions, we could use default methods as you described.
>
>
> > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
>> YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user to
>> specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
>>
>> That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically brought up
>> with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466. It seems sensible
>> to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
>> non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard time
>> though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we could find
>> something more descriptive?
>>
>
> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)
>
>
> Btw. Michael (who has been part of the JSR 310 EG) pointed out that
>> TimeProvider should return a Clock.
>>
>
> I agree. We should use Clock.
>
>
> Christian
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160923/3bc2ae78/attachment.html 

From hjohn at xs4all.nl  Fri Sep 23 03:04:40 2016
From: hjohn at xs4all.nl (John Hendrikx)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:04:40 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>


>     > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
>     YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user
>     to specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
>
>     That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically
>     brought up with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466
>     <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466>. It seems sensible
>     to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
>     non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard
>     time though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we
>     could find something more descriptive?
>
>
> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)

Perhaps just provide annotations for their inverse.

NotFuture/NotInFuture = past + now (past inclusive)
NotPast/NotInPast = future + now (future inclusive)

Or perhaps a general modifying annotation, that can be applied to 
everything to invert the matching logic:

@Not

Inverts the matching logic on this element.

@Not @Past
@Not @Pattern("TRUE|FALSE")  // hard to write without the @Not

--John

From misterm at gmail.com  Fri Sep 23 16:08:26 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:08:26 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

I was finally able to write something before taking my flight this
morning. Let me know what you think:

https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/760cd54cb1f00bac1ae88d749d01cf80fe79f899/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc

Regards,
Michael

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:04 AM, John Hendrikx <hjohn at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>>     > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
>>     YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user
>>     to specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
>>
>>     That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically
>>     brought up with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466
>>     <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466>. It seems sensible
>>     to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
>>     non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard
>>     time though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we
>>     could find something more descriptive?
>>
>>
>> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)
>
> Perhaps just provide annotations for their inverse.
>
> NotFuture/NotInFuture = past + now (past inclusive)
> NotPast/NotInPast = future + now (future inclusive)
>
> Or perhaps a general modifying annotation, that can be applied to
> everything to invert the matching logic:
>
> @Not
>
> Inverts the matching logic on this element.
>
> @Not @Past
> @Not @Pattern("TRUE|FALSE")  // hard to write without the @Not
>
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Sat Sep 24 04:10:43 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:10:43 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6y13X3FqtCkr1s4U+QAn-AKrn9iLHYPqGEd21=PZ4iDMA@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Michael,

this first version looks great so far. Thanks a lot for this.

Christian

2016-09-23 22:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I was finally able to write something before taking my flight this
> morning. Let me know what you think:
>
> https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/
> 760cd54cb1f00bac1ae88d749d01cf80fe79f899/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:04 AM, John Hendrikx <hjohn at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>     > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
> >>     YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user
> >>     to specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
> >>
> >>     That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically
> >>     brought up with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466
> >>     <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466>. It seems
> sensible
> >>     to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
> >>     non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard
> >>     time though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we
> >>     could find something more descriptive?
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)
> >
> > Perhaps just provide annotations for their inverse.
> >
> > NotFuture/NotInFuture = past + now (past inclusive)
> > NotPast/NotInPast = future + now (future inclusive)
> >
> > Or perhaps a general modifying annotation, that can be applied to
> > everything to invert the matching logic:
> >
> > @Not
> >
> > Inverts the matching logic on this element.
> >
> > @Not @Past
> > @Not @Pattern("TRUE|FALSE")  // hard to write without the @Not
> >
> > --John
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160924/d7ae60e8/attachment.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Sat Sep 24 04:31:29 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 10:31:29 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Awesome, many thanks Michael! Going to look into the proposal asap.

--Gunnar


2016-09-23 22:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> Hi guys,
>
> I was finally able to write something before taking my flight this
> morning. Let me know what you think:
>
> https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/
> 760cd54cb1f00bac1ae88d749d01cf80fe79f899/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:04 AM, John Hendrikx <hjohn at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>     > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
> >>     YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the user
> >>     to specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
> >>
> >>     That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically
> >>     brought up with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466
> >>     <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466>. It seems
> sensible
> >>     to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
> >>     non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard
> >>     time though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we
> >>     could find something more descriptive?
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)
> >
> > Perhaps just provide annotations for their inverse.
> >
> > NotFuture/NotInFuture = past + now (past inclusive)
> > NotPast/NotInPast = future + now (future inclusive)
> >
> > Or perhaps a general modifying annotation, that can be applied to
> > everything to invert the matching logic:
> >
> > @Not
> >
> > Inverts the matching logic on this element.
> >
> > @Not @Past
> > @Not @Pattern("TRUE|FALSE")  // hard to write without the @Not
> >
> > --John
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20160924/e6596b7b/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Sun Sep 25 05:22:06 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:22:06 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CAPc8kR1MrR9JEdwsCEMqE=PYuvZx9nz7gRBY6ZODQ1k2SSyWgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR1MrR9JEdwsCEMqE=PYuvZx9nz7gRBY6ZODQ1k2SSyWgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6z1cCuQXwjRR3PBkHDvy5L5fTes26d0ivkzO-8J2CRoSg@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Emmanuel, Hey Gunnar,

sorry for my late reply. Thank you very much for the enormous amount of
work you already spent on this proposal. This topic seems to be quite
complex and it looks like you spent many hours thinking about all this. It
is a bit difficult to give good feedback without being so deep into this
topic. But I'll try. ;-)

   1. I was wondering whether the distinction between
   SingleContainerValueExtractor and ManyContainerValuesExtractor is really
   necessary. I'm not sure if the unnecessary instantiation of an iterator in
   the single value case is really a problem in practice. I think extractor
   implementations will provide some special implementation of the Iterator/
   Iterable contract in any case. Not sure how others feel about that.
   2. Section 2.1 states that BV will support Iterable and Map by default.
   What about Optional? We will support the JDK8 date/time API, so why
   don't we plan to support Optional?
   3. I like the idea that users can provide custom extractors for other
   container types. Not sure if this is something the average developer will
   do very often, but defining an SPI here seems like a good idea.
   4. I'm not completely sure if the "one extractor per container" or the
   "one extractor per container + value" approach makes more sense. That's a
   very difficult questions. I think I need some more time to think about that.
   5. The concept of @ConstraintsApplyTo looks fine to me and makes a lot
   of sense. Especially being able to use the annotation on the extractor AND
   at the container declaration site.

That's my first batch of feedback. Hope this helps.

Christian




2016-09-19 16:29 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com>:

> That's fine to me.
>
> On 19 Sep 2016 4:31 a.m., "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
>> more complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>>
>>> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
>>> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>> >Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>>> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>>> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>>> >
>>> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>>> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>>> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>>> >elements to validate them.
>>> >
>>> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>>> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>>> >
>>> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>>> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>>> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>>> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>>> >
>>> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>>> >
>>> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>>> >
>>> >The capability to define custom containers.
>>> >
>>> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>>> >
>>> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and
>>> for
>>> >subclasses of containers.
>>> >
>>> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>>> >transition.
>>> >
>>> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>>> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>>> >less elaborated at this stage).
>>> >
>>> >Emmanuel
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >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
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160925/ceb7029b/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Mon Sep 26 04:18:19 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:18:19 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

Great proposal! I like your scheme for capturing all types to be supported
and how you describe the validation routine.

Some questions/thoughts:

* Why is it that you use compareTo() over isAfter()/isBefore()? I reckon
the latter are not as widely supported amongst JSR 310 types?
* What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations in
ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
* What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple" TemporalAmount
implementations support"?
* We need a way to expose the ClockProvider to ConstraintValidator
implementations (injection via CDI may be used, but BV must be usable
without CDI, too). Adding a new method
ConstraintValidatorContext#getClockProvider() seems the most obvious choice
(currently the RI provides
HibernateConstraintValidatorContext#getTimeProvider() for that purpose).
* Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It seems
we could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
@Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.

--Gunnar






2016-09-24 10:31 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:

> Awesome, many thanks Michael! Going to look into the proposal asap.
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
> 2016-09-23 22:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was finally able to write something before taking my flight this
>> morning. Let me know what you think:
>>
>> https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/760cd54
>> cb1f00bac1ae88d749d01cf80fe79f899/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:04 AM, John Hendrikx <hjohn at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> >>     > Another thing: If @Future and @Past support types like LocalDate,
>> >>     YearMonth and Year, should we perhaps enhance them to allow the
>> user
>> >>     to specify that the "current" year/month/date should also be valid?
>> >>
>> >>     That's a very good point, too! This one has been specifically
>> >>     brought up with https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466
>> >>     <https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-466>. It seems
>> sensible
>> >>     to add an annotation parameter for this given the support for these
>> >>     non-instant types. When looking at your example, I'd have a hard
>> >>     time though to reason the exact semantics of inclusive(). I hope we
>> >>     could find something more descriptive?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I agree that "inclusive" isn't a good name. I'm open for any ideas. ;-)
>> >
>> > Perhaps just provide annotations for their inverse.
>> >
>> > NotFuture/NotInFuture = past + now (past inclusive)
>> > NotPast/NotInPast = future + now (future inclusive)
>> >
>> > Or perhaps a general modifying annotation, that can be applied to
>> > everything to invert the matching logic:
>> >
>> > @Not
>> >
>> > Inverts the matching logic on this element.
>> >
>> > @Not @Past
>> > @Not @Pattern("TRUE|FALSE")  // hard to write without the @Not
>> >
>> > --John
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20160926/29573a9f/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Mon Sep 26 08:00:02 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:00:02 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> Great proposal! I like your scheme for capturing all types to be supported
> and how you describe the validation routine.

Nice!

> * Why is it that you use compareTo() over isAfter()/isBefore()? I reckon the
> latter are not as widely supported amongst JSR 310 types?

Unfortunately, it's not in any interface though. So we have to stick
to what the interfaces provide... :-)

> * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations in
> ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?

All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
"extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
now you can get thinking too :-)

> * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple" TemporalAmount
> implementations support"?

These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
@Min support should work for the single unit they support.

> * We need a way to expose the ClockProvider to ConstraintValidator
> implementations (injection via CDI may be used, but BV must be usable
> without CDI, too). Adding a new method
> ConstraintValidatorContext#getClockProvider() seems the most obvious choice
> (currently the RI provides
> HibernateConstraintValidatorContext#getTimeProvider() for that purpose).

Sure, did I remove that? :-)

> * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It seems we
> could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
> @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.

Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.

Regards,
Michael

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep 27 00:15:20 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:15:20 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oWCfi9uGv2VCOEZTQu91ZOhSdLksYRqj7xrq=h8s-uq4w@mail.gmail.com>

This is *super* complex. I wonder if we could get Alex Buckley and/or
Michael Ernst to take a look at it to make sure we're going on the
right direction. What do you think?

PS: If they can't, I'll need a few hours of detailed reading to
provide any meaningful feedback.

Regards,
Michael

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit more
> complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>>
>> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
>> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>> >
>> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>> >elements to validate them.
>> >
>> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>> >
>> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>> >
>> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>> >
>> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>> >
>> >The capability to define custom containers.
>> >
>> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>> >
>> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
>> >subclasses of containers.
>> >
>> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>> >transition.
>> >
>> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>> >less elaborated at this stage).
>> >
>> >Emmanuel
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep 27 00:20:24 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:20:24 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oUo=wPFTLk+iAfvP0EV2b2xi3PuaJvgYEUBe2qKoEVneg@mail.gmail.com>

I evolved the proposal a little bit more.

Diff: https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/compare/760cd54cb1f00bac1ae88d749d01cf80fe79f899...sjmisterm:patch-1
Whole proposal:
https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/02f45ccc1bf133d960575c724c6fd43a5b53641b/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc

Please notice I've added another question that is not JSR-310 specific
at the end of the document.

Regards,
Michael

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>> Great proposal! I like your scheme for capturing all types to be supported
>> and how you describe the validation routine.
>
> Nice!
>
>> * Why is it that you use compareTo() over isAfter()/isBefore()? I reckon the
>> latter are not as widely supported amongst JSR 310 types?
>
> Unfortunately, it's not in any interface though. So we have to stick
> to what the interfaces provide... :-)
>
>> * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations in
>> ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
>
> All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
> case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
> PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
> ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
> or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
> "extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
> the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
> TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
> now you can get thinking too :-)
>
>> * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple" TemporalAmount
>> implementations support"?
>
> These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
> @Min support should work for the single unit they support.
>
>> * We need a way to expose the ClockProvider to ConstraintValidator
>> implementations (injection via CDI may be used, but BV must be usable
>> without CDI, too). Adding a new method
>> ConstraintValidatorContext#getClockProvider() seems the most obvious choice
>> (currently the RI provides
>> HibernateConstraintValidatorContext#getTimeProvider() for that purpose).
>
> Sure, did I remove that? :-)
>
>> * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It seems we
>> could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
>> @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.
>
> Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
> JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.
>
> Regards,
> Michael

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Tue Sep 27 10:36:00 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:36:00 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oWCfi9uGv2VCOEZTQu91ZOhSdLksYRqj7xrq=h8s-uq4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWCfi9uGv2VCOEZTQu91ZOhSdLksYRqj7xrq=h8s-uq4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX89hpDcmtx0bKyuxEAD9mD=oKmNZ23x+DsNVo31OJCJqA@mail.gmail.com>

I definitely recommend EG members spend time on this proposal. That's
exactly why having such a diverse EG is so valuable: getting feedback and
input from different folks with different backgrounds.

That's not to say to not circulate it further (great idea!), but we should
do our homework first. I know it takes time, but that was part of the deal
when you sold your soul and joined the EG ;)

So thanks a lot for any feedback you may provide!


2016-09-27 6:15 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> This is *super* complex. I wonder if we could get Alex Buckley and/or
> Michael Ernst to take a look at it to make sure we're going on the
> right direction. What do you think?
>
> PS: If they can't, I'll need a few hours of detailed reading to
> provide any meaningful feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
> more
> > complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> >>
> >> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
> >> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
> >>
> >> Emmanuel
> >>
> >> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> >> >Hi all,
> >> >
> >> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
> >> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
> >> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
> >> >
> >> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
> >> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
> >> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
> >> >elements to validate them.
> >> >
> >> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
> >> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
> >> >
> >> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
> >> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
> >> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
> >> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
> >> >
> >> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
> >> >
> >> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
> >> >
> >> >The capability to define custom containers.
> >> >
> >> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
> >> >
> >> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and
> for
> >> >subclasses of containers.
> >> >
> >> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
> >> >transition.
> >> >
> >> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
> >> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
> >> >less elaborated at this stage).
> >> >
> >> >Emmanuel
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >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/20160927/d11242f6/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Tue Sep 27 11:43:13 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:43:13 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX89hpDcmtx0bKyuxEAD9mD=oKmNZ23x+DsNVo31OJCJqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWCfi9uGv2VCOEZTQu91ZOhSdLksYRqj7xrq=h8s-uq4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX89hpDcmtx0bKyuxEAD9mD=oKmNZ23x+DsNVo31OJCJqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oWoS6gFWP09ddczhGO4m9U+X58jbO3MuG9fHP69Eov2CQ@mail.gmail.com>

I don't want to escape my responsibility as an EG member and sorry if
it sounded like I did. What I meant is I feel the feedback I can
provide in an area as complex as the new type annotations might be
faulty and expert help would be useful. Let me get done with the other
proposal first and I'll get back to this one.

Regards,
Michael

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> I definitely recommend EG members spend time on this proposal. That's
> exactly why having such a diverse EG is so valuable: getting feedback and
> input from different folks with different backgrounds.
>
> That's not to say to not circulate it further (great idea!), but we should
> do our homework first. I know it takes time, but that was part of the deal
> when you sold your soul and joined the EG ;)
>
> So thanks a lot for any feedback you may provide!
>
>
> 2016-09-27 6:15 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>
>> This is *super* complex. I wonder if we could get Alex Buckley and/or
>> Michael Ernst to take a look at it to make sure we're going on the
>> right direction. What do you think?
>>
>> PS: If they can't, I'll need a few hours of detailed reading to
>> provide any meaningful feedback.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
>> > more
>> > complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>> >>
>> >> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
>> >> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>> >>
>> >> Emmanuel
>> >>
>> >> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>> >> >Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>> >> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>> >> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>> >> >
>> >> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>> >> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>> >> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on
>> >> > contained
>> >> >elements to validate them.
>> >> >
>> >> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>> >> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring
>> >> > "alternative"
>> >> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at
>> >> > this
>> >> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>> >> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>> >> >
>> >> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>> >> >
>> >> >The capability to define custom containers.
>> >> >
>> >> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>> >> >
>> >> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and
>> >> > for
>> >> >subclasses of containers.
>> >> >
>> >> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>> >> >transition.
>> >> >
>> >> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs
>> >> > proposal
>> >> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>> >> >less elaborated at this stage).
>> >> >
>> >> >Emmanuel
>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> >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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 28 04:12:04 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:12:04 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

2016-09-26 14:00 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> > Great proposal! I like your scheme for capturing all types to be
> supported
> > and how you describe the validation routine.
>
> Nice!
>
> > * Why is it that you use compareTo() over isAfter()/isBefore()? I reckon
> the
> > latter are not as widely supported amongst JSR 310 types?
>
> Unfortunately, it's not in any interface though. So we have to stick
> to what the interfaces provide... :-)
>

Yes, we could say something about these methods explicitly, but using the
Comparable contract definitely simplifies things.

> * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations in
> > ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
>
> All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
> case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
> PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
> ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
> or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
> "extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
> the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
> TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
> now you can get thinking too :-)
>

Ok, got you.

That'd only be a problem though if you wanted to write a single validator
implementation for all of them, right? I'm wondering whether one wouldn't
use several more specific implementations anyways, given one needs to
invoke a specific static now() method?


> > * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple" TemporalAmount
> > implementations support"?
>
> These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
> @Min support should work for the single unit they support.
>

Ah, seeing now that Duration and Period implement these. I don't think I
like @Max/@Min for these as it's not clear what the unit of the expected
value is. New constraints may be more useful here:

    public void save(@MaxDuration(value=60, unit=ChronoUnit.SECONDS)
Duration d) { ... }

> * We need a way to expose the ClockProvider to ConstraintValidator
> > implementations (injection via CDI may be used, but BV must be usable
> > without CDI, too). Adding a new method
> > ConstraintValidatorContext#getClockProvider() seems the most obvious
> choice
> > (currently the RI provides
> > HibernateConstraintValidatorContext#getTimeProvider() for that purpose).
>
> Sure, did I remove that? :-)
>

No, I think it was not yet part of the proposal :)

> * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It seems
> we
> > could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
> > @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.
>
> Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
> JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.
>

Ok, I'd say if think you can come up with something for this quickly, go
for it. Otherwise let's keep it separately. It'd be nice to have a first
cut of stuff we can take and provide support for in the RI.

Thanks a lot for your effort, Michael, that's much appreciated!

Regards,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160928/5fd863e5/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 28 06:56:30 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:56:30 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BVAL-498 Obtain parameter names through reflection
Message-ID: <CADGJaX-7VCbCnDmRhL03=4mFqbuT1+Yur2A4qc8iC5OL3xJiOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

There is a proposal for using the new reflective parameter names for
executable validation: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-498/

It's there for a while and I've moved forward by creating a PR with the
spec change: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/pull/114

Can you please let me know about any remarks by the end of the week.
Silence will be taken as "no objections". Not that I expect much
controversy on this one :)

Thanks,

--Gunnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160928/588809f6/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Wed Sep 28 09:37:31 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:37:31 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oURavLP6a3fyrZDEGm7KpuytX8G2nhkt8gbKErLG3+-uQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> > * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations
>> in
>> > ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
>>
>> All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
>> case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
>> PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
>> ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
>> or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
>> "extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
>> the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
>> TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
>> now you can get thinking too :-)
>>
>
> Ok, got you.
>
> That'd only be a problem though if you wanted to write a single validator
> implementation for all of them, right? I'm wondering whether one wouldn't
> use several more specific implementations anyways, given one needs to
> invoke a specific static now() method?
>

Ideally we'd want to use a single implementation since it automatically add
supports for any custom TemporalAccessor out there, including
ThreeTen-Extra or project specific ones (I've written a few of them).

I've listed a few available at ThreeTen-Extra in the version I've sent two
days ago:

https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/patch-1/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc


>
>
>> > * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple" TemporalAmount
>> > implementations support"?
>>
>> These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
>> @Min support should work for the single unit they support.
>>
>
> Ah, seeing now that Duration and Period implement these. I don't think I
> like @Max/@Min for these as it's not clear what the unit of the expected
> value is.
>

Duration and Period are *not* TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. I was
talking about classes such as:

http://www.threeten.org/threeten-extra/apidocs/org/threeten/extra/Days.html


> New constraints may be more useful here:
>
>     public void save(@MaxDuration(value=60, unit=ChronoUnit.SECONDS)
> Duration d) { ... }
>

Exactly, even though we should name it around TemporalAmount or ChronoUnit
:-)

> * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It seems
>> we
>>
> > could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
>> > @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.
>>
>> Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
>> JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.
>>
>
> Ok, I'd say if think you can come up with something for this quickly, go
> for it. Otherwise let's keep it separately. It'd be nice to have a first
> cut of stuff we can take and provide support for in the RI.
>

Let's see how much we can evolve this week.


> Thanks a lot for your effort, Michael, that's much appreciated!
>

That's what I've signed up for ;-)

Regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160928/b950ebd1/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Wed Sep 28 09:41:50 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:41:50 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] BVAL-498 Obtain parameter names through reflection
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX-7VCbCnDmRhL03=4mFqbuT1+Yur2A4qc8iC5OL3xJiOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX-7VCbCnDmRhL03=4mFqbuT1+Yur2A4qc8iC5OL3xJiOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oVibJ6N6tr9Wk3cc4vR1BTZisV+wJrsXcKkD+xRuyC=_w@mail.gmail.com>

LGTM.

Regards,
Michael

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There is a proposal for using the new reflective parameter names for
> executable validation: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-498/
>
> It's there for a while and I've moved forward by creating a PR with the
> spec change: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-
> spec/pull/114
>
> Can you please let me know about any remarks by the end of the week.
> Silence will be taken as "no objections". Not that I expect much
> controversy on this one :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Gunnar
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160928/188a93b9/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Wed Sep 28 09:58:20 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:58:20 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oURavLP6a3fyrZDEGm7KpuytX8G2nhkt8gbKErLG3+-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oURavLP6a3fyrZDEGm7KpuytX8G2nhkt8gbKErLG3+-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oUkRh25S-3+u+_ti7r=oYrBSRF2MMCznsFOx1RG7sLtmA@mail.gmail.com>

BTW, have you (any of you, not just Gunnar) read the new question I've
added at the end of the proposal? That's the main use case with JSR-310 and
BV that will be missing.

Regards,
Michael

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> > * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around limitations
>>> in
>>> > ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
>>>
>>> All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
>>> case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
>>> PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
>>> ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
>>> or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
>>> "extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
>>> the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
>>> TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
>>> now you can get thinking too :-)
>>>
>>
>> Ok, got you.
>>
>> That'd only be a problem though if you wanted to write a single validator
>> implementation for all of them, right? I'm wondering whether one wouldn't
>> use several more specific implementations anyways, given one needs to
>> invoke a specific static now() method?
>>
>
> Ideally we'd want to use a single implementation since it automatically
> add supports for any custom TemporalAccessor out there, including
> ThreeTen-Extra or project specific ones (I've written a few of them).
>
> I've listed a few available at ThreeTen-Extra in the version I've sent two
> days ago:
>
> https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/patch-
> 1/proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>
>
>>
>>
>>> > * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple"
>>> TemporalAmount
>>> > implementations support"?
>>>
>>> These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
>>> @Min support should work for the single unit they support.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, seeing now that Duration and Period implement these. I don't think I
>> like @Max/@Min for these as it's not clear what the unit of the expected
>> value is.
>>
>
> Duration and Period are *not* TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. I was
> talking about classes such as:
>
> http://www.threeten.org/threeten-extra/apidocs/org/
> threeten/extra/Days.html
>
>
>> New constraints may be more useful here:
>>
>>     public void save(@MaxDuration(value=60, unit=ChronoUnit.SECONDS)
>> Duration d) { ... }
>>
>
> Exactly, even though we should name it around TemporalAmount or ChronoUnit
> :-)
>
> > * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It
>>> seems we
>>>
>> > could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
>>> > @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.
>>>
>>> Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
>>> JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I'd say if think you can come up with something for this quickly, go
>> for it. Otherwise let's keep it separately. It'd be nice to have a first
>> cut of stuff we can take and provide support for in the RI.
>>
>
> Let's see how much we can evolve this week.
>
>
>> Thanks a lot for your effort, Michael, that's much appreciated!
>>
>
> That's what I've signed up for ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160928/514eed6f/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Wed Sep 28 10:10:48 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:10:48 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oUkRh25S-3+u+_ti7r=oYrBSRF2MMCznsFOx1RG7sLtmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oURavLP6a3fyrZDEGm7KpuytX8G2nhkt8gbKErLG3+-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUkRh25S-3+u+_ti7r=oYrBSRF2MMCznsFOx1RG7sLtmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_xT=YDOVKvpGw_9aHJbhPhE3QNGtKNAKd00NzHP6b+fQ@mail.gmail.com>

2016-09-28 15:58 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> BTW, have you (any of you, not just Gunnar) read the new question I've
> added at the end of the proposal? That's the main use case with JSR-310 and
> BV that will be missing.
>

For reference, that's the question:

> One of the most common scenarios with date/time types (applies to ranges
of all types
> though) is to have a start and end property for which start must be
(sometimes equal or)
> greater than now and end must be (sometimes equal or) greater than start.
Are we not
> supporting this somehow?

There is no explicit support for this in the spec. Currently you'd have to
write your custom class-level constraint for this sort of cross-field
validation (or use something as @ScriptAssert from the RI).

I definitely see how it's a sore point.

Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > * What are the shortcomings meant by "2.1.1. Working around
>>>> limitations in
>>>> > ConstraintValidator that prevent the above strategy"?
>>>>
>>>> All those sections without content are still to be written. In this
>>>> case, according to the spec, there is no way to write a
>>>> PastTemporalAccessorComparableConstraintValidator extends
>>>> ConstraintValidator<Past, ? extends TemporalAccessor & Comparable<?>>
>>>> or something like it, which is the natural choice. Making it just
>>>> "extends ConstraintValidator<TemporalAccessor>" won't make it fail at
>>>> the right phase if @Past is applied to a non-Comparable
>>>> TemporalAccessor. I have a few ideas on how to address that, but maybe
>>>> now you can get thinking too :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, got you.
>>>
>>> That'd only be a problem though if you wanted to write a single
>>> validator implementation for all of them, right? I'm wondering whether one
>>> wouldn't use several more specific implementations anyways, given one needs
>>> to invoke a specific static now() method?
>>>
>>
>> Ideally we'd want to use a single implementation since it automatically
>> add supports for any custom TemporalAccessor out there, including
>> ThreeTen-Extra or project specific ones (I've written a few of them).
>>
>> I've listed a few available at ThreeTen-Extra in the version I've sent
>> two days ago:
>>
>> https://github.com/sjmisterm/beanvalidation.org/blob/patch-1
>> /proposals/BVAL-496.adoc
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > * What do you have in mind with regards to "2.4. "Simple"
>>>> TemporalAmount
>>>> > implementations support"?
>>>>
>>>> These are TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. For these, @Max and
>>>> @Min support should work for the single unit they support.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, seeing now that Duration and Period implement these. I don't think I
>>> like @Max/@Min for these as it's not clear what the unit of the expected
>>> value is.
>>>
>>
>> Duration and Period are *not* TemporalAmount(s) with a single unit. I was
>> talking about classes such as:
>>
>> http://www.threeten.org/threeten-extra/apidocs/org/threeten/
>> extra/Days.html
>>
>>
>>> New constraints may be more useful here:
>>>
>>>     public void save(@MaxDuration(value=60, unit=ChronoUnit.SECONDS)
>>> Duration d) { ... }
>>>
>>
>> Exactly, even though we should name it around TemporalAmount or
>> ChronoUnit :-)
>>
>> > * Regarding Duration/Period, how about handling this separately? It
>>>> seems we
>>>>
>>> > could add this in a second step, allowing to align quickly on the
>>>> > @Future/@Past additions and add support for it to the RI.
>>>>
>>>> Your call :-) I was just trying to consolidate everything about
>>>> JSR-310 in a single proposal; there's nothing wrong with splitting it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, I'd say if think you can come up with something for this quickly, go
>>> for it. Otherwise let's keep it separately. It'd be nice to have a first
>>> cut of stuff we can take and provide support for in the RI.
>>>
>>
>> Let's see how much we can evolve this week.
>>
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your effort, Michael, that's much appreciated!
>>>
>>
>> That's what I've signed up for ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160928/c716490a/attachment.html 

From misterm at gmail.com  Wed Sep 28 10:18:11 2016
From: misterm at gmail.com (Michael Nascimento)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:18:11 -0300
Subject: [bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_xT=YDOVKvpGw_9aHJbhPhE3QNGtKNAKd00NzHP6b+fQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX8gw7mJuUm0kizmwmBtFDvG9nNsE+Qfk0eCMsz01ZnPBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX8a0NnEnJa+469xM12as9gjc9a8-5bBT5vzdwQ_vQgEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<451B8D8D-BBE9-4F15-BE27-E5F0B20F2211@me.com>
	<CAPc8kR0ZbXQE1mgkiW=wibFW_92AaNq5TSut_8g3Q6cPVxu7pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yDwzNZaL5G3hEv_iWFsdS+vOe1uRUvYq1j4Vf33yz=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_o3_kp=Sg88eEyhMZCMd=rubGa+9z=1DYkyJ+PwEVqKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6yP1+Q2cd7ra-nv+V3CL8pe=3dY3pg_xFsZi1d1=+S-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<40e87e93-ac34-a45f-2610-385a7e91b9c3@xs4all.nl>
	<CAAWA2oVnpLVAdW1FhdMrDoKSz6=DicBJxAvtQrPafKt=B1LVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX85Ej=CibzCaRpC3OALKWmoPiDa-js_b6zaBpbGyfvCaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_B_k+-Rc5DD7SjW7wn+w3t_7Z242ANL_EqXxE6erHNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oWFQy+DPNwn38xLrx1o19HSaBXRGfw1ez+rAWARLPvrew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX-wCo_CjotS42U40LhFcx+O_BDn8rBE=RpCiu1owv5SRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oURavLP6a3fyrZDEGm7KpuytX8G2nhkt8gbKErLG3+-uQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oUkRh25S-3+u+_ti7r=oYrBSRF2MMCznsFOx1RG7sLtmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_xT=YDOVKvpGw_9aHJbhPhE3QNGtKNAKd00NzHP6b+fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAWA2oUq2SJGMkm3-BWd2c87uF8=2zFyaUu+CQ6Uvd7M+1633A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
wrote:

> For reference, that's the question:
>
> > One of the most common scenarios with date/time types (applies to ranges
> of all types
> > though) is to have a start and end property for which start must be
> (sometimes equal or)
> > greater than now and end must be (sometimes equal or) greater than
> start. Are we not
> > supporting this somehow?
>
> There is no explicit support for this in the spec. Currently you'd have to
> write your custom class-level constraint for this sort of cross-field
> validation (or use something as @ScriptAssert from the RI).
>

I think my team was using class-level constraints for that before :-(


> I definitely see how it's a sore point.
>

It is. It would be really nice to support this, probably for any pair of
Comparables. What do you think?

Regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160928/88dccae7/attachment.html 

From moltenma at gmail.com  Wed Sep 28 17:32:08 2016
From: moltenma at gmail.com (Marco Molteni)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 23:32:08 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BVAL-498 Obtain parameter names through reflection
In-Reply-To: <CAAWA2oVibJ6N6tr9Wk3cc4vR1BTZisV+wJrsXcKkD+xRuyC=_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX-7VCbCnDmRhL03=4mFqbuT1+Yur2A4qc8iC5OL3xJiOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oVibJ6N6tr9Wk3cc4vR1BTZisV+wJrsXcKkD+xRuyC=_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANUPYM1THE-P4f2dvbn5oyfnKiTrLd7YqAV2vwssSK+JmDrKww@mail.gmail.com>

No objections :) Thanks Gunnar!

Regards,
Marco

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>
wrote:

> LGTM.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is a proposal for using the new reflective parameter names for
>> executable validation: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-498/
>>
>> It's there for a while and I've moved forward by creating a PR with the
>> spec change: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spe
>> c/pull/114
>>
>> Can you please let me know about any remarks by the end of the week.
>> Silence will be taken as "no objections". Not that I expect much
>> controversy on this one :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --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/20160928/9bc167f1/attachment-0001.html 

From gunnar at hibernate.org  Thu Sep 29 06:13:41 2016
From: gunnar at hibernate.org (Gunnar Morling)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:13:41 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CAEXeC6z1cCuQXwjRR3PBkHDvy5L5fTes26d0ivkzO-8J2CRoSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR1MrR9JEdwsCEMqE=PYuvZx9nz7gRBY6ZODQ1k2SSyWgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6z1cCuQXwjRR3PBkHDvy5L5fTes26d0ivkzO-8J2CRoSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADGJaX_inYiD3XSBS+sNTbCv1tFXKYN-=MZmqk5Kpz8=xLW=wA@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Christian,

Thanks for your comments! Some answers inline.

--Gunnar

2016-09-25 11:22 GMT+02:00 Christian Kaltepoth <christian at kaltepoth.de>:

> Hey Emmanuel, Hey Gunnar,
>
> sorry for my late reply. Thank you very much for the enormous amount of
> work you already spent on this proposal. This topic seems to be quite
> complex and it looks like you spent many hours thinking about all this. It
> is a bit difficult to give good feedback without being so deep into this
> topic. But I'll try. ;-)
>
>    1. I was wondering whether the distinction between
>    SingleContainerValueExtractor and ManyContainerValuesExtractor is
>    really necessary. I'm not sure if the unnecessary instantiation of an
>    iterator in the single value case is really a problem in practice. I think
>    extractor implementations will provide some special implementation of the
>    Iterator/Iterable contract in any case. Not sure how others feel about
>    that.
>
> Good question. I reckon we'll know more after experimenting with this in
the RI.

>
>    1. Section 2.1 states that BV will support Iterable and Map by
>    default. What about Optional? We will support the JDK8 date/time API,
>    so why don't we plan to support Optional?
>
> Optional will be part of it by default. It should be stated somewhere, I
hope :)

>
>    1. I like the idea that users can provide custom extractors for other
>    container types. Not sure if this is something the average developer will
>    do very often, but defining an SPI here seems like a good idea.
>    2. I'm not completely sure if the "one extractor per container" or the
>    "one extractor per container + value" approach makes more sense. That's a
>    very difficult questions. I think I need some more time to think about that.
>
> Same here. Personally I'm not a huge fan of annotating the type parameter
of the extractor type with @ExtractedValue, it will be unfamiliar to many.
I tried to avoid it with the alternative proposal.
>
>
>    1. The concept of @ConstraintsApplyTo looks fine to me and makes a lot
>    of sense. Especially being able to use the annotation on the extractor AND
>    at the container declaration site.
>
> That's my first batch of feedback. Hope this helps.
>

Thanks, it does!

Christian
>
>
>
>
> 2016-09-19 16:29 GMT+02:00 Ot?vio Gon?alves de Santana <
> otaviopolianasantana at gmail.com>:
>
>> That's fine to me.
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2016 4:31 a.m., "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
>>> more complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>>>
>>>> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
>>>> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
>>>>
>>>> Emmanuel
>>>>
>>>> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>>> >Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>>>> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>>>> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>>>> >
>>>> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>>>> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>>>> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>>>> >elements to validate them.
>>>> >
>>>> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>>>> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
>>>> >
>>>> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>>>> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>>>> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>>>> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>>>> >
>>>> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>>>> >
>>>> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>>>> >
>>>> >The capability to define custom containers.
>>>> >
>>>> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>>>> >
>>>> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and
>>>> for
>>>> >subclasses of containers.
>>>> >
>>>> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>>>> >transition.
>>>> >
>>>> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>>>> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>>>> >less elaborated at this stage).
>>>> >
>>>> >Emmanuel
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Kaltepoth
> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160929/47ee62f6/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Thu Sep 29 11:39:17 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:39:17 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] BVAL-498 Obtain parameter names through reflection
In-Reply-To: <CANUPYM1THE-P4f2dvbn5oyfnKiTrLd7YqAV2vwssSK+JmDrKww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGJaX-7VCbCnDmRhL03=4mFqbuT1+Yur2A4qc8iC5OL3xJiOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAWA2oVibJ6N6tr9Wk3cc4vR1BTZisV+wJrsXcKkD+xRuyC=_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANUPYM1THE-P4f2dvbn5oyfnKiTrLd7YqAV2vwssSK+JmDrKww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6wntjmPsv_=hd=BqZKE-huBf7wPc7iXgkrANA3hzHRsfg@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Gunnar,

that makes perfect sense and is a great enhancement! Thanks a lot! +1 from
me!

Christian

2016-09-28 23:32 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> No objections :) Thanks Gunnar!
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> LGTM.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a proposal for using the new reflective parameter names for
>>> executable validation: http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-498/
>>>
>>> It's there for a while and I've moved forward by creating a PR with the
>>> spec change: https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spe
>>> c/pull/114
>>>
>>> Can you please let me know about any remarks by the end of the week.
>>> Silence will be taken as "no objections". Not that I expect much
>>> controversy on this one :)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160929/adb2fb94/attachment.html 

From christian at kaltepoth.de  Fri Sep 30 08:35:43 2016
From: christian at kaltepoth.de (Christian Kaltepoth)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:35:43 +0200
Subject: [bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g.
 Collection<@Email String>)
In-Reply-To: <CADGJaX_inYiD3XSBS+sNTbCv1tFXKYN-=MZmqk5Kpz8=xLW=wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160906161213.GA35574@hibernate.org>
	<20160919112820.GE17874@hibernate.org>
	<CADGJaX_G_34=jGn_y=KumGvt7va1W9kymAq3OtjNs2=p=ZAKzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPc8kR1MrR9JEdwsCEMqE=PYuvZx9nz7gRBY6ZODQ1k2SSyWgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEXeC6z1cCuQXwjRR3PBkHDvy5L5fTes26d0ivkzO-8J2CRoSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADGJaX_inYiD3XSBS+sNTbCv1tFXKYN-=MZmqk5Kpz8=xLW=wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEXeC6yKttzyfKwSaGjXej9uDyiiJRjny=2BBZmmbxXsUjLU7A@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Gunnar,


>>    1. I was wondering whether the distinction between
>>    SingleContainerValueExtractor and ManyContainerValuesExtractor is
>>    really necessary. I'm not sure if the unnecessary instantiation of an
>>    iterator in the single value case is really a problem in practice. I think
>>    extractor implementations will provide some special implementation of the
>>    Iterator/Iterable contract in any case. Not sure how others feel
>>    about that.
>>
>> Good question. I reckon we'll know more after experimenting with this in
> the RI.
>

I agree. The proposal mentions the possibility of having different
functional rules and better performance for the single value case as
reasons for the distinction. I just think that the latter one won't
actually be a real problem.


>>    1. Section 2.1 states that BV will support Iterable and Map by
>>    default. What about Optional? We will support the JDK8 date/time API,
>>    so why don't we plan to support Optional?
>>
>> Optional will be part of it by default. It should be stated somewhere, I
> hope :)
>

The document explicitly states:

*   Bean Validation will have out of the box support for containers
Iterable and Map.*

I was expecting Optional to be listed here too. That's why I mentioned it.
:-)


Christian



-- 
Christian Kaltepoth
Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20160930/920d365e/attachment-0001.html