On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:50, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: Hi all, A colleague of mine reviewing the BV 2.0 changes pointed out an inconsistency in the added/modified constraints. As per the community poll we have now @NegativeOrZero and @PositiveOrZero, whereas we still have the orPresent() option on @Past and @Future. Should it be @PastOrPresent and @FutureOrPresent instead for the sake of consistency? Now one could argue that having only attributes (orPresent(), orZero()) is most consistent with other constraints such as @DigitalMin. But indeed the explicit annotations grew on me over time as they are a bit shorter to use and, more importantly, better to read. It's late in the game, but I feel inclined to extract @PastOrPresent and @FutureOrPresent. What do you think? Thanks, --Gunnar _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

as they are a bit shorter to use and, more importantly, better to read.

and @FutureOrPresent. What do you think?

Just from - very quickly - thinking, no options are coming to my mind. Note that we're about to push the Proposed Final Draft (CR1) with the separate annotations in a bit. We still an re-consider until the Final if something strongly speaks against it, but it seemed like the more likely option to me and the PFD should be out today so it's up online by the end of the week. I wish the question would have come up earlier so it wouldn't be such a rush, but well... 2017-06-21 19:00 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > My argument against is that @Past / @Future could need additional options: like maybe past per year or month instead of instant time. I understand we do use the type structure to extract that information. > Is there potential options people can think of around time constraints? > > For @Positive/@Negative, we decided there were none. > >> On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:50, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> A colleague of mine reviewing the BV 2.0 changes pointed out an >> inconsistency in the added/modified constraints. >> >> As per the community poll we have now @NegativeOrZero and >> @PositiveOrZero, whereas we still have the orPresent() option on @Past >> and @Future. Should it be @PastOrPresent and @FutureOrPresent instead >> for the sake of consistency? >> >> Now one could argue that having only attributes (orPresent(), >> orZero()) is most consistent with other constraints such as >> @DigitalMin. But indeed the explicit annotations grew on me over time >> as they are a bit shorter to use and, more importantly, better to >> read. >> >> It's late in the game, but I feel inclined to extract @PastOrPresent >> and @FutureOrPresent. What do you think? >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Gunnar >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

I'm not a big fan of this option. I mean, who can we define the present? On the same API that will easy: YearMonth Year LocalDate But the API that cares about milliseconds? that will complicate, so we need to define a delta. LocalDateTime LocalTime Instant On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Marco Molteni <moltenma(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> as they are a bit shorter to use and, more importantly, better to >> read. > > > I agree. > >> It's late in the game, but I feel inclined to extract @PastOrPresent >> and @FutureOrPresent. What do you think? > > > > Ok for me. > > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: >> >> Just from - very quickly - thinking, no options are coming to my mind. >> >> Note that we're about to push the Proposed Final Draft (CR1) with the >> separate annotations in a bit. We still an re-consider until the Final >> if something strongly speaks against it, but it seemed like the more >> likely option to me and the PFD should be out today so it's up online >> by the end of the week. >> >> I wish the question would have come up earlier so it wouldn't be such >> a rush, but well... >> >> >> 2017-06-21 19:00 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> > My argument against is that @Past / @Future could need additional >> > options: like maybe past per year or month instead of instant time. I >> > understand we do use the type structure to extract that information. >> > Is there potential options people can think of around time constraints? >> > >> > For @Positive/@Negative, we decided there were none. >> > >> >> On 21 Jun 2017, at 11:50, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> A colleague of mine reviewing the BV 2.0 changes pointed out an >> >> inconsistency in the added/modified constraints. >> >> >> >> As per the community poll we have now @NegativeOrZero and >> >> @PositiveOrZero, whereas we still have the orPresent() option on @Past >> >> and @Future. Should it be @PastOrPresent and @FutureOrPresent instead >> >> for the sake of consistency? >> >> >> >> Now one could argue that having only attributes (orPresent(), >> >> orZero()) is most consistent with other constraints such as >> >> @DigitalMin. But indeed the explicit annotations grew on me over time >> >> as they are a bit shorter to use and, more importantly, better to >> >> read. >> >> >> >> It's late in the game, but I feel inclined to extract @PastOrPresent >> >> and @FutureOrPresent. What do you think? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> --Gunnar >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Otávio Gonçalves de Santana twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava site: http://about.me/otaviojava _______________________________________________ beanvalidation-dev mailing list beanvalidation-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev