i attached a patch "to complete", i don't know how to do the TODO part (to get module id from a unknow call).
i take all comments about this start... Romain 2011/4/3 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > Is there a solution to get informations about current context (module id > for example) at runtime (on a lookup)? > > Romain > > Le 3 avr. 2011 10:59, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > can creating as many emf as persistence-unit * validation-factory number > be > > a solution? > > > > for m in modules // has exactly one validation factory > > for p in pu > > emfs.put(p.id + " " + m.moduleId, createEm(p, m)) > > > > i could bind it in the jndi tree too. IMHO it is a bit like what is done > > today but it starts to be a bit heavy, no? > > > > Romain > > > > 2011/4/3 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > > >> In fact we have to create one emf by module (we could add some > optimization > >> later) so the binding will change IMHO. In a try i set persistence and > >> validation in modules, it can work but it will change persistence > management > >> so i think i have to wait thiago work to do it on 3.2.x too. What's your > >> opinion about this change? > >> > >> Romain > >> > >> Le 3 avr. 2011 01:42, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a écrit > : > >> > >> > Seems like we might have to find a way to track which module a > >> PersistenceUnitInfo comes from so we can give it the right > ValidatorFactory. > >> > > >> > -David > >> > > >> > On Apr 2, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> > > >> >> Probably a stupid question: validation dd can be defined by module > but a > >> >> persistence module is shared between modules so how can i link a > >> validation > >> >> factory to a module in the entitymanager creation? Did i > misunderstood > >> the > >> >> spec? > >> >> > >> >> - Romain > >> >> > >> >> Le 2 avr. 2011 01:25, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a > écrit > >> : > >> >>> > >> >>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> it was my first question about the openejb jndi tree, i don't know > >> where > >> >>>> this context is accessible. > >> >>> > >> >>> The tree ends up looking like this > >> BeanContext->ModuleContext->AppContext. > >> >> The Assembler builds them all so any code part of the assembler can > do > >> >> whatever they want with them during building and we can pass them > around > >> as > >> >> needed in that code. Doesn't have to be on that object, but is an > option > >> if > >> >> it makes things easier. > >> >>> > >> >>> I see we don't build the individual ModuleContext objects till > later. > >> So > >> >> maybe there's some clever way to attach the ValidatorFactory > instances > >> to > >> >> AppContext. Or a clever way to build the ModuleContext objects > earlier. > >> Not > >> >> sure. > >> >>> > >> >>> In terms of the actual JNDI binding, what we did for EJB, > >> EntityManager, > >> >> and DataSource references is when we build the actual object we bind > it > >> with > >> >> a global name. Then all references in the individual smaller JNDI > trees > >> we > >> >> build are just pointers to the global name. So building the JNDI tree > of > >> the > >> >> module or an ejb doesn't involve much and is really just a lot of > >> >> "symlinks." > >> >>> > >> >>> We may or may not be able to do that here. If we did the end result > >> would > >> >> be that each ValidatorFactory is bound exactly twice, once as itself > (a > >> >> plain Factory) and again wrapped with some sort of wrapper like > >> >> BusinessLocalReference for the "get me a new Validator instance" > >> reference. > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ill verify but i think we doesn't need the mapping file but it will > be > >> >>>> loaded before the entitymanager factory (of course ;)) > >> >>>> > >> >>>> so in your opinion i should load in the configurationfactory the > >> >>>> validation.xml, put it in Info objects then copy it in modules to > >> finally > >> >>>> bind validatorfactory/validator in module contexts? i find it a bit > >> >>>> complicated for a simple need, no? > >> >>> > >> >>> Passing a URI or String are our only other two options. Any "live" > >> objects > >> >> like URL is not allowed in the Info tree. We can always expand the > >> >> functionality later, so starting simple is fine. > >> >>> > >> >>> Here would be some side-effects of doing it in the Assembler and > >> creating > >> >> an JAXB and Info tree: > >> >>> > >> >>> 1 validation.xml file would gain altdd support (i.e. > >> >> META-INF/test.validation.xml) > >> >>> 2 could potentially do property overriding of validation.xml like we > do > >> >> for persistence.xml properties > >> >>> 3 could construct a validation.xml in code -- we do this in various > >> tests > >> >> with ejb-jar.xml, beans.xml, and persistence.xml > >> >>> 4 xml parsing issues would be caught in the "configure" phase and > not > >> in > >> >> the "assemble" phase > >> >>> > >> >>> It may or may not be worth it to do any of those things. Pragmatic > >> choices > >> >> are always fine :) It's usually easy to start simple and make it more > >> >> involved later, whereas the reverse is seldom true. So whatever gets > the > >> job > >> >> done is fine. :) > >> >>> > >> >>> We could probably find a way to work in #1 regardless -- we'd just > need > >> to > >> >> use the URL we get from module.getAltDDs(). Then either turn that URL > >> into a > >> >> URI and use that in the Info tree or perhaps somewhat lame, but > >> effective, > >> >> parse the xml and pass the contents as a String (would get us #4 at > >> least). > >> >>> > >> >>> #3 and #4 probably would require going "all the way" like we do for > >> >> persistence.xmls. Again, not sure if it is worth it and doesn't > really > >> need > >> >> to be done now. > >> >>> > >> >>> The harder part is what to do in the Assembler anyway. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -David > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2011/4/1 David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> Hi all, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> to implement bean validation, is it a good idea to do like it (i > >> tried > >> >> to > >> >>>>>> write something simple but understandable, say me if i failed > ;)): > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> <[email protected]>1) create a builder ValidatorBuilder > class > >> >>>>>> i) method createValidatorFactory(ModuleType type {WEBAPP, OTHER}, > >> URL > >> >>>>>> validationUrl {null or not}) returning a ValidatorFactory > >> >>>>>> 2) in Assembler::createApplication() > >> >>>>>> i) bind a dynamic proxy in "VALIDATOR_FACTORY_NAMING_CONTEXT + > >> >>>>>> ValidatorFactory" (same idea for Validator) - > >> >>>>>> containerSystem.getJNDIContext().bind("...", vfProxy) > >> >>>>>> ii) IMHO it should be done before the persistence building (to > put > >> it > >> >>>>> as > >> >>>>>> parameter in the entity manager factory creation) but will it not > >> break > >> >>>>>> something about the weaving (i saw some comments about it)? > >> >>>>>> 3) the proxy/proxies > >> >>>>>> i) manage a map/cache of ValidatorFactory and Validator (is it > >> >>>>> necessary > >> >>>>>> for validator?). The key will be the module (maybe the path? it > >> should > >> >>>>> only > >> >>>>>> be unique) > >> >>>>>> ii) invoke(...) { > >> >>>>>> type = getModuleTypeFromClassLoader(); > >> >>>>>> if (!validatorFactoryExistsForModule(currentModule())) { > >> >>>>>> vf = ValidatorBuilder::createValidatorFactory(type); > >> >>>>>> } > >> >>>>>> return whatWeWantByReflection(); > >> >>>>>> } > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> One quick thought would be to maybe put the ValidatorFactory > instance > >> in > >> >>>>> the ModuleContext object. Should eliminate the need for any > >> >> mapping/caching > >> >>>>> which often ends up leaky. We might even (someday) want to redo > some > >> of > >> >> the > >> >>>>> EntityManagerFactory stuff that way -- we didn't have an > AppContext > >> or > >> >>>>> ModuleContext when that code was written. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On the URL note. The Info object tree passed from the > >> >> ConfigurationFactory > >> >>>>> to the Assembler doesn't allow URL or Class or any other thing > tied > >> to a > >> >>>>> classloader. If we were to create a set of Info objects to > represent > >> the > >> >>>>> validation.xml, how complex would that tree be? For the beans.xml > and > >> >>>>> persistence.xml it was pretty simple. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The validation configuration file looks really simple. The mapping > >> file > >> >> is > >> >>>>> complex. I'm not sure if we need both or just one of them like in > JPA > >> >> (we > >> >>>>> handle persistence.xml and the provider handles the mapping files) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -David > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> >
