Guys it is not needed normally and using https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/bval-jsr/src/main/java/org/apache/bval/jsr/ConfigurationImpl.javais enough Le 19 mars 2014 23:47, "Matt Benson" <gudnabr...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 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 > <michael.blyak...@gmail.com> 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 <gudnabr...@gmail.com> > 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 > >> <michael.blyak...@gmail.com> 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 > >> > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>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" < > michael.blyak...@gmail.com> > >> >> 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 < > gudnabr...@gmail.com> > >> >> > 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 > >> >> > > <michael.blyak...@gmail.com> 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 < > >> >> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > 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 <gudnabr...@gmail.com > >: > >> >> > > >> > 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 < > >> >> gudnabr...@gmail.com > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > 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 > >> >> > > >> >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 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 > >> >> > > >> >>> <gudnabr...@gmail.com>: > >> >> > > >> >>>> 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 > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> 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 > >> >> > > >> >>>>> <gudnabr...@gmail.com > >> >> >: > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> 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 > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > > >
