This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
>like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
>more complicated that it seems at first glance.
>Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
>Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
>notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
>elements to validate them.
>This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
>This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
>options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
>stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
>would need to become part of the spec as next step.
>Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
>In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
>The capability to define custom containers.
>The extractor approach vs its alternative.
>The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(
COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and for
>subclasses of containers.
>@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
>And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
>2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
>less elaborated at this stage).
>beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev mailing list