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 05:56:52 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message