By way of example. let's say the application developer includes WEB-INF/validation.xml with <message-interpolator>com.acme.bv.CustomMessageInterpolator</message-interpolator>, the spec says the ValidatorFactory must be configured with a CDI managed bean representing this class (presumably only if there is such a managed bean available; otherwise I suppose we'd fall back to non-CDI instantiation behavior). If the BValExtension isn't aware of the user's configuration, this can't happen.
Matt On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > excepted the cdi integration is done through an interceptor getting > Validator injected so it still works, ot I didn't get the failing case > (possible ;) > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2014-03-20 17:43 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>: >> Well, take the existing BValExtension code. When the extension is >> constructed, it calls Validation.byDefaultProvider().configure(). It >> never has a chance to learn about WEB-INF/validation.xml, and I'm >> having a very hard time believing that we're supposed to ignore it >> completely, and that when a user decides (not unreasonably) to use >> this location as specified in the EE spec, that the CDI support we >> provide is completely unaware of their custom validation >> configuration. It would violate principle of least surprise in quite a >> flagrant manner. This seems to run us all the way back to the SPI >> approach where BVal has to discover for itself where to pull >> validation.xml ! :P >> >> Matt >> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau >> <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>
