On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:46:05 +0200, Gunnar Morling
wrote:
> Does the document also relate to the TCK?
the assertions are matched against statements in the spec using a file
called tck-audit.xml.
So there is definitely a connection, but the connection w/ the api is
tighter imo
> What forma
+1 on having the spec. on github.
Does the document also relate to the TCK? If so it maybe makes sense
to have it within a third repo next to beanvalidation-api and
beanvalidation-tck. Otherwise putting it into beanvalidation-api seems
good. What format will the document have?
-- Gunnar
2011/6
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:10:15 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
> Guys I'm considering releasing the specification document as a Git
> repository.
> I am wondering if the document should share the same Git repo as
> beanvalidation-api or if these two should be kept separated. In other
> words
Actually, the case was that we installed the artifacts on the local
repository of the CI virtual machine and not on our corporate repository.
The reason we did that was so that the builds for the reference
implementation won't break when the API changes. Since we used the same CI
server for other p
Are y'all using SNAPSHOT versioning in your development poms?
By the same logic below y'all should be using SNAPSHOT in your poms and
explicitly setting a version during release.
-
Steve Ebersole
Project Lead
http://hibernate.org
st...@hibernate.org
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss, a divi
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:27:06 +0100, Alaa Mohsen
wrote:
Well, we have our own integration server which installs the new builds to
our local repository. I uninstalled the new artifacts with the wrong
version, and got the ones from the older ones and we fixed our builds.
What I meant by affect
Well, we have our own integration server which installs the new builds to
our local repository. I uninstalled the new artifacts with the wrong
version, and got the ones from the older ones and we fixed our builds. What
I meant by affecting the released version is for the people with cases like
ours
Ah year that's my fault. But Isn't beta4 up in the maven cloud? I
don't understand why what I commit in trunk does affect released
versions?
On Mar 15, 2009, at 04:46, Alaa Mohsen wrote:
Hello guys,
I'm facing a problem right now, and the problem is that we
currently have Hibernate
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:49:59 +0100, Alaa Mohsen
wrote:
Hello guys,
We faced a problem with in-house constraints that were used to
annotate
classes (Target = ElementType.TYPE). When we debugged a little, we found
out
that the MetaConstraint constrictor that takes Type t sets the eleme
Yes, make sense
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/BVAL-125
On Feb 22, 2009, at 17:32, Alaa Mohsen wrote:
Hello Guys,
I was thinking about something. Why do we have the default
value for min() in the Size constraint set to Integer.MIN_VALUE and
not zero? I know
Hi Alaa,
thanks for the info. I will fix the unit tests. I actaully passes on my
machine, but
I can see that it could fail. Really one can not rely on the order of the
constraint
violations.
I'll fix it asap.
--Hardy
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:04:26 +0100, Alaa Mohsen
wrote:
Hello Guys,
Great.
Just to make sure that we don't work on the same things - could you
contact the asignee in case you want to work
on on an already assigned task? In many cases the person is more than
happy to drop a task, but just has to know ;-)
In case you start working on an unassinged task make sure
OK. So no need for me to implement it then. Got a couple of meetings, then
I'll look at what I can do in the RI
Regards,
Alaa Nassef
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Hardy Ferentschik
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am actually implementing this as we speak. I need it in order to
> implement
> BVAL-99. And ye
Hi,
I am actually implementing this as we speak. I need it in order to
implement
BVAL-99. And yes, it ends up to be a static map.
--Hardy
What's the status of BVAL-90 (Stop using a properties file for
built-in
constraints and move to a list in Java)? I'm thinking of implementing it
u
Hi,
no worries. I applied your patch and also fixed the big. Thanks for the
patch.
--Hardy
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:09:30 +0100, Alaa Mohsen
wrote:
Hello Guys,
I implemented most constraint validators yesterday and added a
patch on
JIRA. There was a small bug in the AssertFalse v
I have a question. When you said to add the map at the ValidatorFactory
level, did you mean to add it to ValidatorFactoryImpl? As I can see, getting
the validators of built in constraints happens in ConstraintDescriptorImpl,
which is used only by the BeanMetaDataImpl. Do I put the map in
Constraint
OK
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> Actually I am sure now, you have to store the list in a Map at the
> ValidatorFactory level because the list of validators can be overridden in
> XML.
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:28, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> I don't see the need fo
Actually I am sure now, you have to store the list in a Map at the
ValidatorFactory level because the list of validators can be
overridden in XML.
On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:28, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
I don't see the need for reflection. Just add them to the map, period.
You might want to sto
I don't see the need for reflection. Just add them to the map, period.
You might want to store the map in the ValidatorFactory instead of a
static, not sure.
On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:22, Alaa Mohsen wrote:
Hello All,
What's the status of BVAL-90 (Stop using a properties file for
built-
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:34:42 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
BTW, either ValidationContext has a bad name or ValidatorContext has a
bad name but one of them has to change:
- ValidationContext => ValidatorExectionContext?
Agreed. The whole Validation vs Validator thing gets me all the tim
On Jan 31, 2009, at 06:08, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:49:24 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard > wrote:
I don't think HibernateValidatorConfiguration should go in the
engine package. That's a public API. it should stay in the root
package.
Ok. The main point was to remove the
21 matches
Mail list logo
