Providing a Configuration<?> impl bval will get all it needs to execute. For executable stuff there is a property you can add but not sure it will be needed for you. Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-03-20 15:22 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>: > 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 >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
