Yes, basically use your own representation of validation.xml and create the Configuration respecting what is in validation.xml (kind of custom to bval conversion). That's what we do (and we'll do) in tomee validationbuilder 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 15:50 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>: > Providing a Configuration<?> implies that I am loading the classes from > validation.xml myself. This circumvents the bval instantiation and > integration of CDI if it is available, no? > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
