BV is not EE aware so that's not a big deal. It works fine in META-INF and in WEB-INF for EE case when the container handles it.
Not sure I see the issue. That's the integration work of EE and not of BVal IMO. 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 17:31 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>: > But this goes back to the problem that the EE spec says to pull > validation.xml from WEB-INF. Since the BV spec doesn't make any > mention of WEB-INF/validation.xml it does imply that we could never > handle CDI as defined by the spec, because we wouldn't be able to make > the determination whether, e.g., any custom ConstraintValidatorFactory > was specified. Since the spec clearly says we *do* have to integrate > w/ CDI in an EE container, we may IMO surmise that we have to attempt > to implement the *intent* of the spec since we clearly can't follow > the *letter* of the spec. Does that make sense? This seems to put us > back to the need for a container to either specify some handle to read > the validation configuration, or else the unmarshaled > ValidationConfigType object, due to the difference between the > *classname* as supplied by the validation config vs. the *instance* as > would be supplied by the Configuration bootstrap methods. > > Matt > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> to provide its own validator and validatorfactory 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 17:07 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>: >>> 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 >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>>>
