But TomEE isn't using BVal 1.1 yet, is it, so how can we say it's handled? I haven't looked at what Hibernate Validator does. I only care to implement 1. the spec and 2. what works for users.
Matt On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
