Hi, In the current revision of the spec, the value-extractor element is at the same level as message-interpolator for instance. So, when you want to add several value-extractors, you end up having the following: <validation-config> <message-interpolator>org.hibernate.beanvalidation.tck. tests.integration.cdi.managedobjects.MessageInterpolatorUsingDepend encyInjection</message-interpolator> <value-extractor>package.MapKeyValueExtractorUsingDepen dencyInjection</value-extractor> <value-extractor>package.MapValueValueExtractorUsingDep endencyInjection</value-extractor> </validation-config> I was thinking that we should maybe wrap it into a value-extractors element. It would be nicer and more consistent with the usual conventions. What do you all think about it? -- Guillaume _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

It's a bit more verbose, but the wrapper makes more explicit that multiple extractors can be given. So +1 for the wrapper. 2017-05-20 12:57 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm(a)gmail.com&gt;: > Consistency is a great argument imho, so +1 for wrapping it. > > []s > Michael > > On 18 May 2017 07:04, "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> In the current revision of the spec, the value-extractor element is at the >> same level as message-interpolator for instance. >> >> So, when you want to add several value-extractors, you end up having the >> following: >> <validation-config> >> >> >> <message-interpolator>org.hibernate.beanvalidation.tck.tests.integration.cdi.managedobjects.MessageInterpolatorUsingDependencyInjection</message-interpolator> >> >> >> <value-extractor>package.MapKeyValueExtractorUsingDependencyInjection</value-extractor> >> >> <value-extractor>package.MapValueValueExtractorUsingDependencyInjection</value-extractor> >> >> </validation-config> >> >> I was thinking that we should maybe wrap it into a value-extractors >> element. It would be nicer and more consistent with the usual conventions. >> >> What do you all think about it? >> >> -- >> Guillaume >> >> _______________________________________________ >> beanvalidation-dev mailing list >> beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > beanvalidation-dev mailing list > beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev