bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Location of validation.xml
Date Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:46:43 GMT
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