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 18:01:09 GMT
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