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 14:50:59 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message