Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>]

Hi, Michael. Note that the latest release of Apache BVal currently
implements v1.0 of the BV specification and thus that JEE 6 is the
relevant "uber-spec." That being the case I see the quoted text at
section 5.16 rather than 5.17, but that slight discrepancy
notwithstanding, my read on this is as follows:

The BV spec is designed to function in a Java SE environment. The EE
spec imposes the WEB-INF/validation.xml location, but goes on, in
section 5.16.2 to say:
  The Java EE Product Provider is responsible for providing
appropriate Validator and ValidatorFactory objects as required by this
specification.

I conclude that the onus of bootstrapping the ValidatorFactory et al
lies at the level of the EE container managing the bean validation
impl. For a simple webapp in which you are managing BV yourself,
therefore, WEB-INF/validation.xml is only applicable if you choose to
make it so. Others are welcome to present differing opinions, however.

HTH,
Matt

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Michael Blyakher
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

Hmm not sure spec allows it actually.

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 17:39 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>:
> 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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

I can't think why you would specify mapping files in
[*-INF]/validation.xml just to ignore them. Rather you'd *either* use
this file to configure the default Validator or bootstrap
programmatically and use Configuration#addMapping() for your mappings.
Do you have a use case to help me understand when you would want this
"mixed" behavior?

Matt

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Michael Blyakher
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <gu...@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
>> <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <mb...@apache.org>:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >
>> >
>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

Well CDI is ambiguous enough in particular when integrating CDI + EJB
to not suppose it (yet - hopefully CDI will fix it)
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2014-03-20 19:28 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
> Hmm, I would have assumed the container was responsible for bootstrapping
> CDI per deployment context (ear, war) and that the BValExtension and its
> contributions would therefore likewise be contextual as a matter of course.
>
> Matt
>
> On Mar 20, 2014 1:23 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> no since Bval doesn't handle ear and contextual validator. That's why
>> containers will provide Validator and Validator CDI beans
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-20 19:21 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> > <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> well WEB-INF read is done before container instantiate anything. Then
>> >> the link with CDI is done through an interceptor and the container is
>> >> responsible to provide Validator and ValidatorFactory (BVal provides
>> >> default ONLY if not already in CDI context) so I don't see any issue.
>> >
>> > Hmm, but the spec says "In a Java EE container, a Bean Validation
>> > provider must integrate with CDI." To my understanding, that puts the
>> > onus not on the container but on BVal.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-03-20 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher
>> >> <mi...@gmail.com>:
>> >>> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build
>> >>> the
>> >>> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which
>> >>> worked
>> >>> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the
>> >>> classes
>> >>> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
>> >>> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern
>> >>> is no
>> >>> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension
>> >>> separately
>> >>> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
>> >>> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in
>> >>> BVal
>> >>> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
>> >>> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either
>> >>> you can
>> >>> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of
>> >>> the box
>> >>> (ish).
>> >>>
>> >>> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before
>> >>> trying to
>> >>> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hope that helps,
>> >>> Mike
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
>> >>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
>> >>>> we have some concrete code to look at.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Matt
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>> <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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"
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

Hmm, I would have assumed the container was responsible for bootstrapping
CDI per deployment context (ear, war) and that the BValExtension and its
contributions would therefore likewise be contextual as a matter of course.

Matt
On Mar 20, 2014 1:23 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> no since Bval doesn't handle ear and contextual validator. That's why
> containers will provide Validator and Validator CDI beans
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-03-20 19:21 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> well WEB-INF read is done before container instantiate anything. Then
> >> the link with CDI is done through an interceptor and the container is
> >> responsible to provide Validator and ValidatorFactory (BVal provides
> >> default ONLY if not already in CDI context) so I don't see any issue.
> >
> > Hmm, but the spec says "In a Java EE container, a Bean Validation
> > provider must integrate with CDI." To my understanding, that puts the
> > onus not on the container but on BVal.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> >> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> >> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> >> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-03-20 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <michael.blyakher@gmail.com
> >:
> >>> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build
> the
> >>> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which
> worked
> >>> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the
> classes
> >>> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
> >>> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern
> is no
> >>> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension
> separately
> >>> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
> >>> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in
> BVal
> >>> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
> >>> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either
> you can
> >>> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of
> the box
> >>> (ish).
> >>>
> >>> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before
> trying to
> >>> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that helps,
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
> >>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
> >>>> we have some concrete code to look at.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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"
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> <gu...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

no since Bval doesn't handle ear and contextual validator. That's why
containers will provide Validator and Validator CDI beans
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2014-03-20 19:21 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> well WEB-INF read is done before container instantiate anything. Then
>> the link with CDI is done through an interceptor and the container is
>> responsible to provide Validator and ValidatorFactory (BVal provides
>> default ONLY if not already in CDI context) so I don't see any issue.
>
> Hmm, but the spec says "In a Java EE container, a Bean Validation
> provider must integrate with CDI." To my understanding, that puts the
> onus not on the container but on BVal.
>
> Matt
>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> Twitter: @rmannibucau
>> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
>> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
>> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-20 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>:
>>> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build the
>>> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which worked
>>> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the classes
>>> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
>>> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern is no
>>> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension separately
>>> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
>>> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in BVal
>>> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either you can
>>> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of the box
>>> (ish).
>>>
>>> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before trying to
>>> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
>>>
>>> Hope that helps,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
>>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
>>>> we have some concrete code to look at.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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"
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> <gu...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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

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

Matt

> Romain Manni-Bucau
> Twitter: @rmannibucau
> Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
> LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
> Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
>
>
>
> 2014-03-20 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>:
>> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build the
>> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which worked
>> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the classes
>> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
>> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern is no
>> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension separately
>> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
>> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in BVal
>> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
>> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either you can
>> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of the box
>> (ish).
>>
>> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before trying to
>> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
>>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
>>> we have some concrete code to look at.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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"
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> <gu...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

well WEB-INF read is done before container instantiate anything. Then
the link with CDI is done through an interceptor and the container is
responsible to provide Validator and ValidatorFactory (BVal provides
default ONLY if not already in CDI context) so I don't see any issue.
Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2014-03-20 19:10 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>:
> My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build the
> config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which worked
> fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the classes
> required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
> components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern is no
> longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension separately
> from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
> container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in BVal
> and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
> WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either you can
> handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of the box
> (ish).
>
> As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before trying to
> integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Mike
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
>> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
>> we have some concrete code to look at.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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"
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> <gu...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

My guess is that TomEE was able to use the Configuration API to build the
config from validation.xml and then pass control off to BVal, which worked
fine in 1.0 because there it was simple loading/instantiating the classes
required. Now with 1.1, the CDI integration requires that the custom
components be created as CDI managed beans, which means that pattern is no
longer valid unless the EE container handles the CDI extension separately
from what is already bundled with BVal 1.1. Or in other words, the EE
container cannot utilize and integrate the CDI code already present in BVal
and must do it on it's own all so that it can handle the
WEB-INF/validation.xml location. At this point it sort of an either you can
handle WEB-INF/validation.xml OR you can have CDI integration out of the
box (ish).

As I've tried to explain, this was not previously an issue before trying to
integrate BVal 1.1 into an EE7 app server.

Hope that helps,
Mike


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm still not seeing how TomEE does or will handle
> WEB-INF/validation.xml . We may have to agree to disagree here until
> we have some concrete code to look at.
>
> Matt
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>> > <rm...@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
>>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>> > <rm...@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
>>> >> > <rm...@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
>>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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
>> >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
> > <rm...@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
> >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
> >> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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
>> >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
> > <rm...@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
> >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
> >> >> >> > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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
>> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

You mean just because of the missing executable info, or is there
something more I'm missing? The 1.1 cut of ConfigurationImpl currently
defines #setExecutableValidation() and if we continue down this road I
think we should be flush if we merely add support for
#setDefaultValidatedExecutableTypes() there as well.

Matt

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Michael Blyakher
<mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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
>> >> <mi...@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
>> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> >> >> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > > <gu...@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
>> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
> > <rm...@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
> >> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
> >> >> > <mi...@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
> >> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> >> > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> > >> <mi...@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
>> >> > >> > <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> > >> >> > > >
>> >> > >> >> > >
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
> > <rm...@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" <gu...@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
> >> > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> >> > >> <mi...@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
> >> > >> > <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> > >> >> > > >
> >> > >> >> > >
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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" <gu...@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
>> > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> > >> <mi...@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
>> > >> > <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > >> >> > > >
>> > >> >> > > >
>> > >> >> > >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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" <gu...@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
> > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> > >> <mi...@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
> > >> > <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > <mi...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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" <gu...@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
> <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> >> <mi...@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
> >> > <rm...@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
> >> >> > > <mi...@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
> >> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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
<mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> <mi...@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
>> > <rm...@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" <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> > > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>> <gu...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <mi...@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
> > <rm...@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" <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> >> > > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> >> > > >> >> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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
<mi...@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
> <rm...@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" <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> > > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
>> > > >> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

>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
<rm...@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" <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> > > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> > > >> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> > > >> >>>> <rm...@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
> > > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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" <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> > <mi...@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 <gu...@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
> > >> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> > >> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> > >> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <mi...@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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
> >> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
> >> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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
<mi...@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 <rm...@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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
>> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>> <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
> >> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
> >>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
> >>>>>>>> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
> >>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

this looks ok but  just wanted to avoid the "oh so good....oops" effect ;)
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 17:06 GMT+01:00 Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>:
> 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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>]

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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <gu...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <gu...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <gu...@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
> <rm...@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 <mb...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <gu...@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
<rm...@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 <mb...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mb...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>>> > <mi...@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
>>>> >> <rm...@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
>>>> >>>
>>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <mb...@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
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>>> > <mi...@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
>>> >> <rm...@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
>>> >>>
>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
>> > <mi...@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
>> >> <rm...@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
>> >>>
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@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
<rm...@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 <mb...@apache.org>:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
> > <mi...@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
> >> <rm...@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
> >>>
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mb...@apache.org>:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
> <mi...@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
>> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Matt Benson <mb...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Michael Blyakher
<mi...@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
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

We surely miss some "set" methods but you can already pass to bval the
file to parse and it will handle it. Typically the CDI integration
will need some love in a EE server (getting the right validator) and
this is not yet really handled.

API doesn't allow it btw which is weird. Surely cause if you go for a
programmatic choice you'll use annotations and don't need it

Romain Manni-Bucau
Twitter: @rmannibucau
Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/
LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau
Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau



2014-03-18 19:01 GMT+01:00 Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> <rm...@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 <mi...@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
>>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Michael Blyakher <mi...@gmail.com>]

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.

Thanks,
Michael


On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rm...@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 <mi...@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
>

Re: Location of validation.xml

[Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>]

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 <mi...@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