bval-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Blyakher <michael.blyak...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Location of validation.xml
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:22:35 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message