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@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@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,--Gunnar2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma@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@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@gmail.com>:+1 to including them.
Regards,
Michael
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma@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@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/ beanvalidation-dev