This is *super* complex. I wonder if we could get Alex Buckley and/or
Michael Ernst to take a look at it to make sure we're going on the
right direction. What do you think?
PS: If they can't, I'll need a few hours of detailed reading to
provide any meaningful feedback.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Gunnar Morling <email@example.com> wrote:
> If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit more
> complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
> 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> 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:
>> >Hi all,
>> >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
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev mailing list