Re: [bv-dev] First Alpha release of Bean Validation 2.0 RI
2017-02-16 20:17 GMT+01:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm(a)gmail.com>:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Guillaume Smet
<guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Michael Nascimento <misterm(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Since Duration is really just seconds and milliseconds and any conversion
>> is always flat (in the sense it doesn't take into account daylight savings
>> time, for instance), I find it way less useful to support than Period and
>> arbitrary TemporalAmounts (such as
>> http://www.threeten.org/threeten-extra/apidocs/org/threeten/extra/Days.html
>> ).
>
>
> The first PR of Marko contained the Period support. The issue is that
> Period is not comparable and there is no easy way to compare 2 periods so we
> decided to not implement it for now. The typical issue we had is how do you
> compare 1 month and 30 days.
You don't compare, because they are not the same. The idea is that the
Period must be defined in terms of the units for which you defined its
boundaries.
I see. I'm wondering though how practical that will be. Will the
developer who puts the constraint always know the structure of the
Period set to the field (data set by the application user)?
>
> As for supporting threeten-extra, it wouldn't be done in the spec anyway.
You shouldn't support threeten-extra, but rather arbitrary TemporalAmounts.
Then threeten-extra just happen to be one of those. There must be something
like @ChronoUnitMax/@ChronoUnitMin such as:
@ChronoUnitMax(unit=DAYS, value=1)
How would that look like for a Period with several elements set, e.g.
"3 months, 2 days"? Would we need a dedicated member in @ChronoUnitMax
for each value of ChronoUnit (which are a lot)?
As I said, I'm open to provide input, I was just surprised this support was
not discussed as part of the spec itself and prototyping work started right
way (in the less useful class for business applications, in my opinion).
We had a discussion of Duration et al. a while ago, but it petered
out. So we thought we'd add something to the RI to spark a new
discussion. Seems it worked :)
Regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev