Re: [bv-dev] Support for OptionalInt, OptionalLong and OptionalDouble

Hi, I'm curious about your take on supporting the types in ${subject} (BVAL-579 [1]). They are non-generic wrappers for int, long and double. Should we support them with the numeric constraints such as @Min et al.? The easiest way to do so would be to just mandate support in the JavaDoc of the numeric constraint types. The only thing I can see speaking against this is that we may migrate to an extractor-based approach in a future revision. Currently extractors cannot be used, as those types don't have any type parameter which could be extracted. But assuming we extend the extractor API in a future revision to deal with non-generic types, too, we could then rather mandate built-in extractors for those types. Which will allow to put *any* constraint applying to int also to OptionalInt. Should we do such change in a future revision, I don't think anything would change for users. Only providers would have to implement support for these types via extractors instead of dedicated constraint validators. I think such change is acceptable. What do others think? Thanks, --Gunnar [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-579 _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev