Unless I am mistaken, when bval creates the configured components from validation.xml (MessageInterpolator, ParameterNameProvider, etc...), it uses BValExtension#inject which creates these components as CDI managed beans. That is what I would be loosing by loading/instantiating these classes without delegating to bval to do it.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > not sure I follow, while @Inject Validator works it is fine. > 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 16:17 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>: > > So doing that means I will be loosing all of the integration that bval > does > > with CDI. Does that mean I need to do the CDI pieces outside of this bval > > implementation? That has been my whole driver for this discussion... > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > > <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
