[bv-dev] Support for constraints on container values (e.g. Collection<@Email String>)

[Gunnar Morling]

I definitely recommend EG members spend time on this proposal. That's
exactly why having such a diverse EG is so valuable: getting feedback and
input from different folks with different backgrounds.

That's not to say to not circulate it further (great idea!), but we should
do our homework first. I know it takes time, but that was part of the deal
when you sold your soul and joined the EG ;)

So thanks a lot for any feedback you may provide!


2016-09-27 6:15 GMT+02:00 Michael Nascimento <misterm at gmail.com>:

> This is *super* complex. I wonder if we could get Alex Buckley and/or
> Michael Ernst to take a look at it to make sure we're going on the
> right direction. What do you think?
>
> PS: If they can't, I'll need a few hours of detailed reading to
> provide any meaningful feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > If everyone could take a look at this one, that'd be great! It's a bit
> more
> > complex, so the more eyes we get on this one, the better.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 2016-09-19 13:28 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> >>
> >> This is probably going to be most visible feature of Bean Validation
> >> 2.0. We particularly need your feedback and involvement on this one.
> >>
> >> Emmanuel
> >>
> >> On Tue 2016-09-06 18:12, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> >> >Hi all,
> >> >
> >> >I and a few others have been working on a proposal to support things
> >> >like Collection<@Email String> and Optional<@Email String>. This is
> >> >more complicated that it seems at first glance.
> >> >
> >> >Instead of doing an ad-hoc support for the various collection types,
> >> >Optional and the JavaFX Properties, we quickly decided to define the
> >> >notion of container and the ability to declare constraints on contained
> >> >elements to validate them.
> >> >
> >> >This lead to two main proposals that you can read at
> >> >http://beanvalidation.org/proposals/BVAL-508/
> >> >
> >> >This is a relatively long read, you can start by ignoring "alternative"
> >> >options for your first pass. We are very interested in feedback at this
> >> >stage as we have been pushing these proposal very far already and they
> >> >would need to become part of the spec as next step.
> >> >
> >> >Let me know of what you think, questions, remarks etc.
> >> >
> >> >In particular, I'm interested in what you think of the following.
> >> >
> >> >The capability to define custom containers.
> >> >
> >> >The extractor approach vs its alternative.
> >> >
> >> >The concepts of @ConstraintsAppliesTo(COMTAINED) used for JavaFX and
> for
> >> >subclasses of containers.
> >> >
> >> >@Valid, in particular the legacy and new forms and how to handle the
> >> >transition.
> >> >
> >> >And finally, but a big one, what do you think of proposal 1 vs proposal
> >> >2. The latter being more generic but with more open questions (and a
> >> >less elaborated at this stage).
> >> >
> >> >Emmanuel
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >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/20160927/d11242f6/attachment.html