that's not an issue if not in a EE container. Let think to tomcat + bval there -> not cdi aware so not an issue. In TomEE, WAS, JBoss it is handled so I don't see any issue here and would like to avoid BVal to do so much that it will break some containers and make their behavior weird. 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 17:53 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>: > 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 >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>
