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 Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:21:28 GMT
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> well WEB-INF read is done before container instantiate anything. Then
> the link with CDI is done through an interceptor and the container is
> responsible to provide Validator and ValidatorFactory (BVal provides
> default ONLY if not already in CDI context) so I don't see any issue.

Hmm, but the spec says "In a Java EE container, a Bean Validation
provider must integrate with CDI." To my understanding, that puts the
onus not on the container but on BVal.

Matt

> 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 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyakher@gmail.com>:
>> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build the
>> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which worked
>> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the classes
>> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
>> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern is no
>> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension separately
>> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
>> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in BVal
>> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
>> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either you can
>> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of the box
>> (ish).
>>
>> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before trying to
>> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
>>> we have some concrete code to look at.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > In a EE container the container is responsible of more than it and in
>>> > "more" there is enough to not bother BVal impl with anything more than
>>> > what is today. You could say the same for EE 6 since it was already
>>> > the case. If you check tomee impl nothing could have helped.
>>> > 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 18:27 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gudnabrsam@gmail.com>:
>>> >> I had a bit of trouble parsing that, Romain, but you mentioned using
>>> >> META-INF/validation.xml. EE spec says a webapp uses
>>> >> WEB-INF/validation.xml . BVal should allow the EE container to make
>>> >> that happen, else how can it be used in a compliant EE container?
>>> >>
>>> >> Matt
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> >> <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> 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