[bv-dev] Support for OptionalInt, OptionalLong and OptionalDouble

[Otávio Gonçalves de Santana]

Once that belongs to Java 8, that makes sense to me.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about your take on supporting the types in ${subject}
> (BVAL-579 [1]).
>
> They are non-generic wrappers for int, long and double. Should we
> support them with the numeric constraints such as @Min et al.? The
> easiest way to do so would be to just mandate support in the JavaDoc
> of the numeric constraint types.
>
> The only thing I can see speaking against this is that we may migrate
> to an extractor-based approach in a future revision. Currently
> extractors cannot be used, as those types don't have any type
> parameter which could be extracted. But assuming we extend the
> extractor API in a future revision to deal with non-generic types,
> too, we could then rather mandate built-in extractors for those types.
> Which will allow to put *any* constraint applying to int also to
> OptionalInt.
>
> Should we do such change in a future revision, I don't think anything
> would change for users. Only providers would have to implement support
> for these types via extractors instead of dedicated constraint
> validators. I think such change is acceptable.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Gunnar
>
> [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-579
> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at 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 <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20170509/5bf814f1/attachment.html