>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:30:36 +0200, Gunnar Morling < gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; said: GM> I also think a dedicated spec would make sense, but it should be made sure GM> that BV and such a new spec work nicely together. Here my long experience with JCP prompts me to say that in this case, the domain of conversion is close enough to validation as to make it worthwhile to keep in BV. Don't forget, we already have so many specs that it's a job even for me to keep up, let alone someone who doesn't get paid full time to do so. At Oracle at least, the oversight for creating a new JSR sets a rather high bar. Ed _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

On Mon 2013-07-15 9:00, Edward Burns wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:30:36 +0200, Gunnar Morling < gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; said: > > GM> I also think a dedicated spec would make sense, but it should be made sure > GM> that BV and such a new spec work nicely together. > > Here my long experience with JCP prompts me to say that in this case, > the domain of conversion is close enough to validation as to make it > worthwhile to keep in BV. > > Don't forget, we already have so many specs that it's a job even for me > to keep up, let alone someone who doesn't get paid full time to do so. > > At Oracle at least, the oversight for creating a new JSR sets a rather > high bar. I have had discussions from within Red Hat on the idea of a conversion / transformation spec and whether or not it should be part of Bean Validation. Our feeling is that yes there would be goodness in standardizing that part in a spec that would work in SE and be bundled in EE (at least by ricochet of being used by other EE specs). There are more than a few projects in that area besides the one we already mentioned: dozer and the Apache Camel type conversion framework for example. But, unlike Ed, we think it is better if Bean Validation and this new spec are two separate lots even though shared EG members are very likely. So far, we have not found the person(s) with enough bandwidth to lead such a spec but we would be supportive of someone starting it and would participate to the expert group. Emmanuel _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

On 17 Jan 2013, at 10:07 PM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > +1 for a separated spec. Same here. I don't think Bean Validation is a good fit, but for sure it is worth standardising in a separated spec. --Hardy _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev