Why can't TomEE rely on BVal for parsing? We should devise something
as simple as possible, whatever the case.

Matt

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well this way we'll need another spi for TomEE which can't rely on
> BVal for parsing. That's why I thought sending the parsing result
>
>
> BTW any urgence on it?
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-03-19 16:43 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <mben...@apache.org>:
>> I was thinking along the lines Michael says. e.g.:
>>
>> public interface DefaultValidationConfigurationProvider {
>>   InputStream getDefaultValidationConfiguration();
>> }
>>
>> Then we use ServiceLoader (functional equivalent for BVal 1.0, Java 5)
>> to find any available implementations. If none found, we fall back to:
>>
>> class StandardDefaultValidationConfigurationProvider implements
>> DefaultValidationConfigurationProvider {
>>   final Properties properties;
>>   StandardDefaultValidationConfigurationProvider(Properties properties) {
>>     this.properties = properties;
>>   }
>>
>>   public InputStream getDefaultValidationConfiguration() {
>>     // look for property pointing to custom resource, else
>> META-INF/validation.xml
>>     // ensure only one such resource
>>     // return getResourceAsStream(resourceName)
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> This way TomEE would simply have to provide:
>>
>> WebApplicationDefaultValidationConfigurationProvider implements
>> DefaultValidationConfigurationProvider {
>>   public InputStream getDefaultValidationConfiguration() {
>>     return getServletContext().getResourceAsStream("WEB-INF/validation.xml");
>>   }
>>
>>   private static ServletContext getServletContext() {
>>     // TBD
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually I'd expect the SPI to give the processed instance and not the
>>> location. That's why i sugegsted to wait a bit for it to see the real
>>> need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-19 16:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>:
>>>> How would an SPI like this work? Would it allow the EE server to specify
>>>> the location of the validation.xml (maybe in the form of an InputStream)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> tomee parses it itself and then create the configuration itself. I
>>>>> think we can wait tomee starts javaee7 to write it since it should be
>>>>> very soon (when next release is done) and it would be the main and
>>>>> more demanding user.
>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>>>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>>>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>>>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-03-18 19:42 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <mben...@apache.org>:
>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>> > <michael.blyak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> Hi All,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Thanks for the quick replies, and apologies for not being more specific
>>>>> - I
>>>>> >> was quoting the EE 7 Platform spec as I am particularly interested in
>>>>> using
>>>>> >> the bval 1.1 implementation that hasn't been officially released yet.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> But from what I am hearing, it is the responsibility of an EE server to
>>>>> >> handle the WEB-INF case. I can see how this is possible for the 1.0
>>>>> >> implementation, as the server can parse the validation.xml itself and
>>>>> >> bootstrap the configuration through the validation spec API's. How 
>>>>> >> would
>>>>> >> this be done for the current 1.1 implementation in the bval-1.1 branch
>>>>> in
>>>>> >> the repository? I don't see how the values for the
>>>>> "executable-validation"
>>>>> >> element could be provided to the impl through the validation spec 
>>>>> >> API's.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Well, the
>>>>> http://bval.apache.org/mvnsite/bval-jsr303/apidocs/org/apache/bval/jsr303/ApacheValidatorConfiguration.Properties.html#VALIDATION_XML_PATH
>>>>> > property can be used to point to a different resource on the
>>>>> > classpath, but I can't find any mechanism that could be used to hook
>>>>> > up WEB-INF/validation.xml, and I can't find how TomEE does it, so
>>>>> > AFAICT you have indeed found what I consider a problem. Off the top of
>>>>> > my head I think we could solve it by adding a simple SPI to discover
>>>>> > the default validation configuration resource. Thoughts?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Matt
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>>> >> Michael
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Hi
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Bval only looks in META-INF but TomEE for instance (more generally EE
>>>>> >>> servers) handles WEB-INF case.
>>>>> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>> >>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>>>>> >>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>>>>> >>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>>>>> >>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> 2014-03-18 17:50 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <
>>>>> michael.blyak...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> >>> > Hi,
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > Where is the validation.xml supposed to be for a web archive? The
>>>>> bval
>>>>> >>> > spec's only indicate the "META-INF/validation.xml" location, but the
>>>>> EE
>>>>> >>> > platform spec indicates that for a web archive this location must be
>>>>> >>> > "WEB-INF/validation.xml".
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > EE.5.17 - "The name of the descriptor is WEB-INF/validation.xml for
>>>>> web
>>>>> >>> > modules and META-INF/validation.xml for all other types of modules."
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > Given this, I don't see anywhere in the bval 1.0 or 1.1 code that
>>>>> handles
>>>>> >>> > this. Am I missing something or does this implementation not handle
>>>>> this
>>>>> >>> > case for web archives?
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> > Thanks,
>>>>> >>> > Michael
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>

Reply via email to