[bv-dev] Proposal for supporting new Java 8 date/time types

[Gunnar Morling]

Hi Michael,

+1 for splitting it up into two parts and have the discussion around
Duration et al. separately. Based on that, do you think you could send a PR
with the first pieces some time soon?

I think it'd be great to put out an Alpha1 of the spec and the RI
containing this change and the other things we have so far. It's just the
first steps, but pushing it out demonstrates progress and allows to get
feedback early on.

My idea would be to do an Alpha1 with these changes around the end of this
month. WDYT?

Thanks,

--Gunnar






2016-10-07 21:52 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> Hi Gunnar,
>
> A little bit time drained here. I have it all in my head, but the time to
> write it down is scarce.... Hopefully I'll follow on Tuesday or Wednesday.
>
> If you want to split it in two parts so we can do the rest later
> (Duration/Period/TemporalAmounts/Comparables) and publish what we have
> now, I'd be fine with it.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> How is it going with the date/time proposal? Anything we should publish
>> on the website?
>>
>> Regarding cross-field validation, can you detail your idea around "pair
>> of Comparables"?
>>
>> --Gunnar
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-28 16:18 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For reference, that's the question:
>>>>
>>>> > One of the most common scenarios with date/time types (applies to
>>>> ranges of all types
>>>> > though) is to have a start and end property for which start must be
>>>> (sometimes equal or)
>>>> > greater than now and end must be (sometimes equal or) greater than
>>>> start. Are we not
>>>> > supporting this somehow?
>>>>
>>>> There is no explicit support for this in the spec. Currently you'd have
>>>> to write your custom class-level constraint for this sort of cross-field
>>>> validation (or use something as @ScriptAssert from the RI).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think my team was using class-level constraints for that before :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>> I definitely see how it's a sore point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is. It would be really nice to support this, probably for any pair of
>>> Comparables. What do you think?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
>> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20161019/4de8dc5a/attachment.html