[bv-dev] BV 2.0 - Add constraints?

Thu Sep 15 06:45:51 EDT 2016

Hi,

I've created a survey using Google Forms on our blog (staging atm.):
http://staging.beanvalidation.org/news/2016/09/15/which-constraints-to-add/

Feedback welcome. Unless I hear back otherwise, I'll push it to the
production site tomorrow and then let's announce it on Twitter to get some
answers. I'd leave it open for two weeks (allowing people to reply after J1
which is next week), which should be plenty of time.

One question I have is should we allow anonymous voting or require logging
in via Google. The latter prevents double votes, but it raises the level
for participation and don't think people feel motivated to vote several
times on this topic really.

Andy thoughts?

Thanks,

--Gunnar

2016-09-14 12:02 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:

> I agree about @Length. It was listed only because of the frequency.  I'd
> limit the addition to @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Btw. I don't see a strong reason for @Length, as we have @Size in the
>> spec for it already.
>>
>> I think it's commonly used in older applications which migrated from HV
>> 3.x (proprietary API) to HV 4.x (BV RI) and kept using the legacy
>> constraint instead of using the spec'-ed @Size.
>>
>> 2016-09-14 11:48 GMT+02:00 Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the idea of collecting some more feedback from the community.
>>>
>>> A blog post may be an option, though I reckon feedback will be sparse
>>> based on previous experiences. I'd rather do a survey as it's more
>>> actionable for people. Either on Twitter (though that seems a bit limited)
>>> or using Google Forms [1], which is my preference.
>>>
>>> I'll prepare something and share it with you soon. If the survey looks
>>> good, we can promote it on Twitter and during the Hackergarten at J1 (of
>>> course talking to people in person there will be a great chance to learn
>>> about their wishes, too).
>>>
>>> It'd be nice if we got some insight from that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --Gunnar
>>>
>>> [1] https://docs.google.com/forms/
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-09-09 11:34 GMT+02:00 Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> which is the best / common way to get a representative feedback
>>>> according to your experience?
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Christian Kaltepoth <
>>>> christian at kaltepoth.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I also think that adding the most popular 3rd party constraints
>>>>> directly to the spec is a good thing. Especially @NotBlank and @NotEmpty.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I also agree that it would be nice to gather more feedback
>>>>> from the community to learn which constraints people would like to see in
>>>>> the spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-09-06 20:50 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to including them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Marco Molteni <moltenma at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It would be possible to add some built-in constraints to the V 2.0?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > @NotBlank, @NotEmpty, @Length are used very often in projects, they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> > already present in Hibernate Validator and their implementation is
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> > defined.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > What do you think?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Here a list of the most used constraint for GitHub's projects (the
>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>> > change at every request but you get the idea. HV = Hibernate
>>>>>> Validator, BV =
>>>>>> > Bean Validation):
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 189'143 - BV - NotNull
>>>>>> >  56'902 - BV - Size
>>>>>> >  39'551 - HV - NotEmpty <-
>>>>>> >  20'687 - HV - NotBlank <-
>>>>>> >  17'735 - BV - Pattern
>>>>>> >  16'763 - HV - Email
>>>>>> >  16'033 - BV - Min
>>>>>> >  12'769 - HV - Length <-
>>>>>> >   7'806 - BV - Digits
>>>>>> >   4'982 - BV - Max
>>>>>> >   4'971 - BV - Past
>>>>>> >   3'598 - BV - DecimalMin
>>>>>> >   2'753 - BV - AssertTrue
>>>>>> >   2'379 - BV - DecimalMax
>>>>>> >   2'308 - BV - Future
>>>>>> >   1'999 - HV - Range
>>>>>> >   1'497 - HV - URL
>>>>>> > < 1'000 other constraints
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Thanks
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Cheers
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Marco
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christian Kaltepoth
>>>>> Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal
>>>>> GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160915/6932623b/attachment-0001.html 