They are Java SE 8 APIs, so they must be supported. From the point of the view of the user, nothing will change, so let's support them now.


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Gunnar Morling <> wrote:

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

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?



beanvalidation-dev mailing list