We clarified in the internal Meeting on 2017-09-28 that this is not a use case. Now it's possible to discuss a solution...
I tend to keep the multiline behavior (we decided to go with it for readability; networking dpm is using the same). We could either add this extra piece of validation into the drivers constructor, or we create a new mulitline config that inherits from the existing multiline but does this extra validation...
We clarified in the internal Meeting on 2017-09-28 that this is not a use case. Now it's possible to discuss a solution...
I tend to keep the multiline behavior (we decided to go with it for readability; networking dpm is using the same). We could either add this extra piece of validation into the drivers constructor, or we create a new mulitline config that inherits from the existing multiline but does this extra validation...