bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Location of validation.xml
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:19:19 GMT
me too and both are done.

When hacked 1.1 impl I added all what was needed for tomee so it should be fine.

about 1.: Bval only handle JSE spec so that's fine, 2. it works for
user, even if users brings CDI = BVal he will then use
META6INF/validation.xml and it will be ok.

The only solution would be to use a @WebListener but it would conflict
with CDI lifecycle in 'custom home made CDI-BVal-EElike server' so I
really want to avoid this kind of solution.

So I think it is fine today.
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 18:15 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>:
> 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
> <rmannibucau@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 <gudnabrsam@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
>>> <rmannibucau@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 <gudnabrsam@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
>>>>> <rmannibucau@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 <gudnabrsam@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
>>>>>>> <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>> <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> > <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rmannibucau@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" <gudnabrsam@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.blyakher@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 <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> gudnabrsam@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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 <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > gudnabrsam@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.blyakher@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 <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > rmannibucau@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 <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> gudnabrsam@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
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> gudnabrsam@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rmannibucau@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gudnabrsam@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rmannibucau@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>> <gudnabrsam@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rmannibucau@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>> <mbenson@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rmannibucau@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> <
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > mbenson@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >:
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM,
>>>>>>>>>> >> Michael
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Blyakher
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <michael.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rmannibucau@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.blyakher@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message