Romain - I don't quite understand what you mean by using ConfigurationImpl.java is enough. I'm not finding that I can do what I described with it. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
