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

On 9 May 2017, at 11:09, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; 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(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> On Wed 17-04-26 10:40, Gunnar Morling wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2017-04-25 20:05 GMT+02:00 Matt Benson <mbenson(a)apache.org&gt;: >>> 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(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