[bv-dev] Questions from BV spec 2.0 public draft

[Emmanuel Bernard]

Well I object :)
You are addressing the less common scenario with this default. 

> On 9 May 2017, at 11:09, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> So my preference is to make strict() default to true (so it's
> consistent with the default value for orPresent() of @Past/@Future).
> I've filed PR https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/106.
> 
> If there are no objections by Thursday, I'll merge it then.
> 
> Thanks for any comments,
> 
> --Gunnar
> 
> 
> 2017-05-03 18:13 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>>> On Wed 17-04-26 10:40, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 2017-04-25 20:05 GMT+02:00 Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org>:
>>>> After reviewing the proposed API, I have the following
>>>> questions/suggestions. I apologize if any of these have already been
>>>> considered:
>>>> 
>>>> * Should there be a common superinterface for
>>>> Path$[BeanNode|PropertyNode|ContainerElementNode], all of which define
>>>> the same methods?
>>> 
>>> I've been wondering the same, but come to think that it doesn't give you much.
>>> 
>>> You (as a user) are going to work with specific node types (as
>>> narrowed down via getKind() + as()), so I would not expect you to deal
>>> with that super-type in your code. It'd put the declaration of those
>>> methods into one place, which is nice, though I kinda like the
>>> simplicity of the current Node hierarchy, with one specific sub-type
>>> per kind.
>>> 
>>> What do others think?
>> 
>> I think that was my idea for not adding a hierarchy back in 1.x.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> * Should ValidatorContext include a self type, as does Configuration?
>>>> This would facilitate the use of custom ValidatorContext subclasses.
>>> 
>>> Ah, there's even an issue for this:
>>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-211.
>>> 
>>> It would have been great to make this a self-referential type from the
>>> get-go, but at this point I'd rather leave it as is. Essentially it
>>> only causes a small effort to providers which need to redeclare all
>>> the ValidatorContext methods to return their own specialised sub-type.
>>> 
>>> The reason I'm reluctant to add it is that users - when upgrading
>>> existing code to BV 2.0 - will get a raw type warning when assigning
>>> ValidatorContext to a variable. I'd prefer to avoid this, at the cost
>>> of the few method re-definitions to be done by providers once, which
>>> seems acceptable.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> * Should Positive/Negative#strict() default true be provided as
>>>> #orZero() default false, for commonality with
>>>> [Past|Future]#orPresent() ?
>>> 
>>> Hum, yes, good point. I think I'd prefer that.
>>> 
>>> @Emmanuel, I vaguely remember we discussed this. Did you see a good
>>> reason for the current default?
>> 
>> I don't even vaguely remember talking about it. Sounds good.
>> Actually I remember now, we discussed whether Positive#orZero should be
>> defaulted to true.
>> 
>> I imagine that >=0 is the most common use case for @Positive (despite
>> the math definition).
>> As for @Negative, I'm on the fence.
>> 
>>> 
>>> @All, what do you think?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> --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