[bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
christian at kaltepoth.de
Sat Mar 25 04:02:25 EDT 2017
- I agree with Marco and Guillaume: I don't think that there is a real
benefit if we use constraint composition. Why not let providers implement
- I'm fine with regexp. One question regarding flags: Wouldn't it be
simpler for users to specify flags simply by using embedded flag
expressions directly in the regular expression? At least this is how I
would do it. ;-)
- I'm fine with leaving them out for now. However, even if they are just
syntactic sugar, I think it would be valuable to have them in the long
term, because they are much easier to read.
2017-03-24 19:20 GMT+01:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
> Hi Gunnar,
> 1. Constraint composition: I agree with Guillaume, I thinks is better let
> the providers do their own implementation.
> 2. Email regex: Good for me.
> 3. @Positive/@Negative: Ok.
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet at gmail.com>
>> Hi Gunnar,
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>>> * Should @NotEmpty mandate the usage of constraint composition (as
>>> it's done in the PRs)? It essentially prescribes an "implementation",
>>> i.e. providers wouldn't even need a constraint validator for it. But
>>> then this excludes any more efficient implementation a provider may
>>> have (well, they could by special-handling this constraint).
>> I'm not convinced it's such a good idea to use constraint composition for
>> @NotBlank and @NotEmpty. I would let the implementation to the providers,
>> especially since using constraint composition does not really buy us
>> anything in this case.
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the beanvalidation-dev