[bv-dev] Questions from BV spec 2.0 public draft

Wed May 10 03:55:20 EDT 2017

I'd go with default strict to true. It's supported by the mathematical
definition of Positive/Negative number.

Very difficult to know the more common scenario (in a quick informal poll
between developers near me everybody was confused).

I found this implementation of Zalando  for a monetary amount and they use
the strict interpretation for @Positive/Negative annotations and they added
@PositiveOrZero/@NegativeOrZero to include the 0  :
https://github.com/zalando/money-validation#usage

The Eclipse Collections (ex-Goldman Sachs collections) defines positive
number > 0 (strict case), https://github.com/goldmansachs/gs-collections. I
would say that the more common scenario is to exclude the 0.

Marco

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org> wrote:

> My last response might have made sense if I'd have sent my previous
> one (to Emmanuel) from the right address:
>
> "Less common" is an opinion. Are there survey data to back it up? By
> contrast, a literal or "strict" interpretation of past or future is
> something that cannot be questioned.
>
> ;)
>
> Matt
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org> wrote:
> > That's why I advocate being literal; then you don't have to guess at
> > people's intention. Can't they compose a version that defaults strict to
> > false?
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > On May 9, 2017 6:22 PM, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is inclusive more common really? My feeling is that one would want to
> >> exclude 0 more often than not. But I don't have any good idea of how
> >> to quantify that...
> >>
> >> 2017-05-09 19:48 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
> >> > Well I object :)
> >> > You are addressing the less common scenario with this default.
> >> >
> >> >> On 9 May 2017, at 11:09, Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> So my preference is to make strict() default to true (so it's
> >> >> consistent with the default value for orPresent() of @Past/@Future).
> >> >> I've filed PR
> >> >> https://github.com/beanvalidation/beanvalidation-api/pull/106.
> >> >>
> >> >> If there are no objections by Thursday, I'll merge it then.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for any comments,
> >> >>
> >> >> --Gunnar
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 2017-05-03 18:13 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org
> >:
> >> >>>> On Wed 17-04-26 10:40, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> >> >>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 2017-04-25 20:05 GMT+02:00 Matt Benson <mbenson at apache.org>:
> >> >>>>> After reviewing the proposed API, I have the following
> >> >>>>> questions/suggestions. I apologize if any of these have already
> been
> >> >>>>> considered:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * Should there be a common superinterface for
> >> >>>>> Path$[BeanNode|PropertyNode|ContainerElementNode], all of which
> >> >>>>> define
> >> >>>>> the same methods?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I've been wondering the same, but come to think that it doesn't
> give
> >> >>>> you much.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> You (as a user) are going to work with specific node types (as
> >> >>>> narrowed down via getKind() + as()), so I would not expect you to
> >> >>>> deal
> >> >>>> with that super-type in your code. It'd put the declaration of
> those
> >> >>>> methods into one place, which is nice, though I kinda like the
> >> >>>> simplicity of the current Node hierarchy, with one specific
> sub-type
> >> >>>> per kind.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What do others think?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think that was my idea for not adding a hierarchy back in 1.x.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * Should ValidatorContext include a self type, as does
> >> >>>>> Configuration?
> >> >>>>> This would facilitate the use of custom ValidatorContext
> subclasses.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Ah, there's even an issue for this:
> >> >>>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/BVAL-211.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It would have been great to make this a self-referential type from
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> get-go, but at this point I'd rather leave it as is. Essentially it
> >> >>>> only causes a small effort to providers which need to redeclare all
> >> >>>> the ValidatorContext methods to return their own specialised
> >> >>>> sub-type.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The reason I'm reluctant to add it is that users - when upgrading
> >> >>>> existing code to BV 2.0 - will get a raw type warning when
> assigning
> >> >>>> ValidatorContext to a variable. I'd prefer to avoid this, at the
> cost
> >> >>>> of the few method re-definitions to be done by providers once,
> which
> >> >>>> seems acceptable.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * Should Positive/Negative#strict() default true be provided as
> >> >>>>> #orZero() default false, for commonality with
> >> >>>>> [Past|Future]#orPresent() ?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hum, yes, good point. I think I'd prefer that.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> @Emmanuel, I vaguely remember we discussed this. Did you see a good
> >> >>>> reason for the current default?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't even vaguely remember talking about it. Sounds good.
> >> >>> Actually I remember now, we discussed whether Positive#orZero should
> >> >>> be
> >> >>> defaulted to true.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I imagine that >=0 is the most common use case for @Positive
> (despite
> >> >>> the math definition).
> >> >>> As for @Negative, I'm on the fence.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> @All, what do you think?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Matt
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --Gunnar
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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/20170510/83cfdeee/attachment-0001.html 