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 Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:44:50 GMT
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