No, but if you would file a JIRA issue it'd make us feel popular. ;) Thanks, Matt
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Michael Blyakher <[email protected]> wrote: > Right after sending of my last email I started wondering this approach of > picking off the mappings in ValidationConfigType and calling #addMapping() > would solve my problem and I'm pretty sure that it will. Glad we got to the > same solution! > > Is there something tracking this work already that I can follow? > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Well, I haven't yet seen anything that tells me that it would be >> correct for a mapping found in WEB-INF/validation.xml to be resolved >> from the ServletContext as opposed to the classpath, but since in an >> EE server the BV impl (here BVal) would live "above" the application >> code there's a problem regardless in having BVal load the mapping >> resources, I think, because it won't have awareness of a given >> webapp's classloader. >> >> However, using Romain's approach of having the actual parsed JAXB >> ValidationConfigType object be passed to BVal would seem to take care >> of your issue: the EE server could use JAXB to produce this from >> WEB-INF/validation.xml, then pick off the mapping elements, provide >> the modified ValidationConfigType object to the BV bootstrapping, and >> call #addMapping() for the app-specific resource streams. How does >> that sound? >> >> Matt >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Michael Blyakher >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > From an application perspective I understand that regardless how the >> > ValidatorFactory is built there would never be a desire to ignore >> > mappings >> > files specified in validation.xml. The application already knows what it >> > wants and therefor anything specified should be used from both ways to >> > specify mappings. >> > >> > In an EE app server environment, the server needs to make the >> > Validator/ValidatorFactory for each module available through injection >> > or >> > lookup. This means the app server is bootstrapping the ValidatorFactory >> > itself, using the module deployment descriptors (validation.xml) to >> > create >> > it before passing it back to the application. With this in mind, the app >> > server needs to be able to direct bval to specify that the location of >> > validation.xml will be under WEB-INF for a web module (if it was >> > included >> > by the app developer). As we discussed earlier, bval doesn't handle >> > this. >> > >> > Taking a step back to 1.0 this wasn't an issue, because as long as the >> > EE >> > app server could handle parsing validation.xml since it knows where/how >> > to >> > find it and programatically bootstrap the Configuration, it could then >> > call >> > ignoreXMLConfiguration and nothing would be lost. Now with 1.1, all CDI >> > integration bval does is lost if the EE app server follows this pattern. >> > Thus, to utilize the CDI integration piece, bval needs to create all of >> > the >> > configuration components, but that also means that it needs to parse >> > validation.xml (or have it be provided to it). >> > >> > Now, if something (method TBD) was done to find WEB-INF/validation.xml >> > by >> > bval, how then would it go about trying to find the mapping files? This >> > is >> > done the same way that validation.xml was looked for originally before >> > this >> > workaround/solution, which gets us into the same situation where we >> > couldn't find WEB-INF/validation.xml if the mapping file is >> > WEB-INF/my-mapping.xml (I'm curious where the spec indicates that this >> > location isn't compliant). >> > >> > So in short, it's not that I want to be able to ignore mappings >> > altogether. >> > I was just thinking that if WEB-INF is a valid location for the mapping >> > file to live, bval won't be able to find it either, so even if a >> > workaround >> > is provided for finding validation.xml, any mappings specified in xml >> > will >> > not be found either. The idea of being able to programatically specify >> > that >> > xml mappings should be ignored is so that the EE app server could >> > convert >> > them into InputStream's and then somehow indicate to bval that it >> > doesn't >> > need to do anything with the xml anymore. >> > >> > Hopefully all of that rambling makes sense and clarifies the problem I'm >> > butting into :) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> I think mapping in web-inf is not spec compliant >> >> >> >> That said calling ignoreXmlConfig you can already do what you want >> >> >> >> Finally i think the spi or assimilated is useless and using api + >> >> maybe >> >> few custom properties should be enough so i wouldnt add it before it >> >> sould >> >> be mandatory. It generally breaks the framework which is not enough >> >> tested >> >> then. >> >> Le 19 mars 2014 22:04, "Michael Blyakher" <[email protected]> >> >> a >> >> écrit : >> >> >> >> > I'm prototyping the development efforts for pulling in the 1.1 >> >> > implementation into an EE app server, so I need be able to press the >> >> right >> >> > buttons on bval so that it is able to handle both the mappings files >> >> > and >> >> > validation.xml. (I won't be able to control how an application >> >> > specifies >> >> > it's mappings, but I need to ensure that specifying them in xml under >> >> > WEB-INF works) >> >> > >> >> > My concern was that I was going to run into the same issues loading >> >> > the >> >> > mappings files as with validation.xml from WEB-INF unless the >> >> > proposed >> >> > change somehow provided a way to tell bval to skip using the mappings >> >> found >> >> > in the provided parsed validation.xml and only use those provided by >> >> > calling Configuration#addMapping(). Otherwise I would call >> >> > Configuration#addMapping(), but bval would still try to find the >> >> > mappings >> >> > resources itself and fail to do so. Does that make sense? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > XML constraint mapping files are separate from xml validation >> >> > > config. >> >> > > So you either provide them via Configuration#addMapping() or in >> >> > > your >> >> > > validation.xml (or whatever you override with). >> >> > > >> >> > > Matt >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Michael Blyakher >> >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > So if I understand this latest proposal correctly, any >> >> > > > bootstrapper >> >> (EE >> >> > > > servers specifically) will be able to provide the parsed >> >> validation.xml >> >> > > > configuration to the ApacheValidatorConfiguration? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > If so, how will this work with the mappings config files? If for >> >> > example >> >> > > I >> >> > > > have my constraints defined in WEB-INF/my-mappings.xml, while >> >> > > bootstrapping >> >> > > > will I still be able to set the InputStream for that file without >> >> bval >> >> > > > trying to do it as well (and not finding this resource at this >> >> > location)? >> >> > > > Previously this could be accomplished by specifying >> >> > > > Configuration.ignoreXMLConfiguration, but I don't quite see how >> >> > > > that >> >> > > would >> >> > > > work in this case. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Thanks, >> >> > > > Mike >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> >> > > [email protected]> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> Well if we can avoid to fork/branch tomee before next release >> >> > > >> would >> >> be >> >> > > >> awesome but yes it sonds reasonable and avoiding jvm SPI is >> >> > > >> awesome >> >> > > >> 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 17:10 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <[email protected]>: >> >> > > >> > Actually, come to think of it, we don't have to do it as a >> >> > "services" >> >> > > >> > SPI at all; we can just define the interface and have it be a >> >> custom >> >> > > >> > config item for ApacheValidatorConfiguration. This makes it >> >> > > >> > more >> >> > > >> > explicit and TomEE can just specify when >> >> > > >> > bootstrapping--hopefully, >> >> > > >> > anyway. We'll see if there are any gotchas and hopefully we >> >> > > >> > can >> >> get >> >> > it >> >> > > >> > working in a TomEE branch or fork before we set it in stone. >> >> > > >> > Okay? >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > Matt >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Matt Benson < >> >> [email protected] >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> Well, in that case I don't see how we can really go wrong >> >> > > >> >> there. >> >> > I'll >> >> > > >> >> try to remember to do this as I'm hacking BVal in the coming >> >> weeks >> >> > > and >> >> > > >> >> maybe we can then see how it looks in TomEE. >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> Matt >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >> >>> that's what I was thinking about but when I hacked 1.1 >> >> > > >> >>> branch I >> >> > was >> >> > > >> >>> really thinking adding it when integrating tomee to avoid a >> >> > useless >> >> > > or >> >> > > >> >>> wrong SPI. >> >> > > >> >>> 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 16:59 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson >> >> > > >> >>> <[email protected]>: >> >> > > >> >>>> So are you proposing the SPI look more like: >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> public interface DefaultValidationConfigProvider { >> >> > > >> >>>> org.apache.bval.jsr.xml.ValidationConfigType >> >> > > >> >>>> getDefaultValidationConfig(); >> >> > > >> >>>> } >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> ? >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> Matt >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >> > > >> >>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> > > >> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >> >>>>> Cause: >> >> > > >> >>>>> 1) TomEE added some features relying on internal config >> >> > > >> >>>>> (placeholders etc) >> >> > > >> >>>>> 2) TomEE uses its own model for all EE descriptors >> >> > > >> >>>>> whatever >> >> the >> >> > > spec >> >> > > >> >>>>> is >> >> > > >> >>>>> >> >> > > >> >>>>> That's not an issue on BVal side but it will need to be >> >> > integrated >> >> > > >> >>>>> without forking as much as possible >> >> > > >> >>>>> >> >> > > >> >>>>> 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 16:52 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson >> >> > > >> >>>>> <[email protected] >> >> >: >> >> > > >> >>>>>> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >> >: >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>: >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>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 < >> >> > [email protected] >> >> > > >: >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <[email protected]> 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <[email protected]>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 < >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]>: >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > 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 >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >
