Re: [bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?
by Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
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, "Otávio Gonçalves de Santana" <
otaviopolianasantana(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice form!!
> I'm sharing it in adopt JSR program email list.
>
> On 15 Sep 2016 03:46, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>>>> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>>> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
7 years, 1 month
Happy Holidays and State of the Union
by Gunnar Morling
Hi,
As the year's end is approaching, I'd like to wish everyone Happy
Holidays and a great year 2017! I hope you can relax a bit during the
holidays and have a great time with your loved ones.
Also let me say a big "thank you" for all your contributions to Bean
Validation 2.0; all the proposals, discussions, reviews etc. have been
very valuable and are appreciated very much. I think we've made some
good progress already, with some easy wins already merged and more
complex matters such as type-level constraints having advanced quite a
bit.
While waiting for some more feedback on the latest revision of the
extractor proposal [1], I'm finally getting back to the proposal for
java.time support. The API change has already been merged, the RI will
follow closely and you can expect a pull request for the spec update
very soon.
With these two things (value extractors, java.time support) in place
at least in some preliminary form, I think we are in good shape for a
first preview release of the spec. Is there anything missing that you
think should absolutely be in the first preview? My goal is to do the
release early in January. I hope we can get some feedback from the
wider community based on this.
Subsequently, we should pick up some other loose ends such as the
validateValues() idea (BVAL-214) and other things like constraint
ordering (BVAL-248), separation of message interpolation and message
bundle retrieval (BVAL-217) and more.
All, thanks again for your efforts with this spec. I'm looking forward
to making BV 2.0 happen together with you in 2017!
--Gunnar
[1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/2016-December/001140....
7 years, 3 months
Updated proposal for container value extraction
by Gunnar Morling
Hi,
It has been silent on the surface, but that doesn't mean we haven't been busy :)
I've spent some time working on a proof of concept implementation of
the value extraction proposal (BVAL-508) which has been added to the
RI earlier this week [1]. This effort brought a fair bit of insights
and clarity which is reflected in an updated proposal that you can
find at [2].
So if you can spend some time and review it, that'd be much
appreciated. It's a bit more formalized than the original proposal and
also takes an opinion on some of the original questions. I tried to
cut down a bit on the many loose ends to advance the matter a bit, but
if you are doubtful about any of the directions taken, please speak
up.
Also the ValueExtractor contract has evolved a bit. It now allows for
a nicely uniform, yet efficient implementation of the single value and
multi value case. Refer to the pull request for the details. There are
some open questions at the end of the document. Feedback on these (and
of course any other parts of the document) are highly welcome. I've
checked on the previous threads and discussions of the matter (e.g.
Hendrik's extensive feedback) and hope the proposal covers all the
essential items. Please let me know if anything is missing.
The idea is that we add this version of the proposal as an appendix to
the spec, adjust the RI to conform with it (it already does more or
less) so we can aim for a first alpha release of spec and RI very
early next year. That will allow people to get their hands on this
feature and play around with it a bit, hopefully resulting in some
more feedback from the outside, too.
My main remaining questions are:
* Is allowing to put constraints to an element but automatically
applying them to the wrapped value the right thing to do? I can see
the concerns about lacking comprehensibility (it's working based on
the presence of an automatically unwrapping value extractor), but then
it's needed to support "@Email StringProperty email"
* Should we support nested collections (e.g. List<Map<String, @NotNull
String>> addressesByType). It hasn't been supported before, but I can
see how it's more appealing with type parameter constraints. But it
adds complexity, too.
Looking forward to your feedback,
--Gunnar
[1] https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-validator/pull/592
[2] https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-spec/pull/116
7 years, 3 months
Type use constraints for field *and* property
by Gunnar Morling
Hi,
As you may have seen, Emmanuel started a survey on how people would like to
use type-level constraints in Bean Validation:
http://beanvalidation.org/news/2016/11/23/survey-constraints-and-paramete...
While we are waiting for some more replies to that one, I started with a
PoC implementation of the value extractor idea in the reference
implementation in order to get a better feeling for it, it's limitations,
open questions etc.:
https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-validator/pull/592
One thing we started to wonder is whether it should be allowed to put
type-level constraints to a field *and* the corresponding property getter
at the same time:
private List<@NotBlank String> strings;
public List<@Pattern(regexp="...") String> getStrings() { return
strings; }
My first inclination was to say that it should be supported (as you can put
regular constraints to a field and its getter). A challenge is how to
obtain the values for constraint validation. In the spirit of BV 1 we'd
have to iterate the values directly from the field for evaluating the
@NotBlank constraint and a second time through the getter for @Pattern
validation. That's a potential performance issue of course.
What do others think?
Thanks,
--Gunnar
7 years, 4 months