Yes, probably we should not support Optional for fields. Also parameters are dubious (the JDK team discourages that afaik). But supporting it for return values (and getter-based properties) seems reasonable.

2016-11-21 14:32 GMT+01:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>:

On 7 Nov 2016, at 23:42, Hendrik Ebbers <hendrik.ebbers@me.com> wrote:

I don’t think that support for Optional is that important since having a field of type Optional looks like an anti-pattern to me. Normally Optional should be used as a method return type and not as a type for a field. Supporting it in the bean validation might end in strange model classes. 

Example:

The following model looks good to me:

public class Model {

@NotNull
private String name; 

public String getName() { return name; }

public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; }

public Optional<String> name() { return Optional.ofNullable(name);}

}

On the other hand this looks like an anti-pattern to me:

public class Model {

@NotNull
private Optional<String> name; 

public Optional<String> getName() { return name; }

public void setName(String name) { this.name = Optional.ofNullable(name); }

}

Yes Optional on a property is deemed an anti pattern by the JDK team but since Bean Validation supports contraints on method parameters and return values, this is still a valid use case

Optional<@Email String> getUserEmail(@NotNull UUID userId);

Emmanuel

_______________________________________________
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