I'm not sure I followed that last comment. Are you implying that an EE container needs to implement it's own CDI extension (or through other means) and not use the native bval support to get this integrated CDI behavior?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: > if not existing and provided by the EE container which will be the > case for sure. > 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 16:52 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>: > > 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 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
