Hi,
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
OptionalInt.
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?
Thanks,
--Gunnar
[1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-579
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/ beanvalidation-dev