You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by it...@daimler.com on 2012/10/08 07:53:38 UTC
MyFaces ExtVal at WAS 8.0.0.4 - Call in violation of protocol
Hello everybody,
I'm currently porting an application and wanted to use MyFaces ExtVal for
Bean Validation. Our application needs to run under WebSphere Application
Server 8.0.0.4. I'm currently using the following maven dependency within
the WAR project:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.validation-modules</
groupId>
<artifactId>myfaces-extval-bean-validation</artifactId>
<version>2.0.5</version>
<exclusions>
<exclusion>
<artifactId>validation-api</artifactId>
<groupId>javax.validation</groupId>
</exclusion>
</exclusions>
</dependency>
It occured weird to me that I have to exclude the validation API but
WebSphere seems to bring it's own which is somehow incompatible. However
that is not the problem. When deploying the application, I get multiple
messages of the following kind:
[08.10.12 07:44:30:883 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@1546284787 ] for method [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1496780783 (
org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
) ] Name [ null ] Description [
Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
] Call in violation of protocol
[08.10.12 07:44:32:836 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@-16051367 ] for method [
com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1207608866 (
org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
) ] Name [ null ] Description [
Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
] Call in violation of protocol
The application itself works fine, as these are only warnings, BUT the
deployment and start process of the application is heavily slowed down. It
seems, WAS does not like something within the validation classes. I've
tried to get some more information about what kind of 'call in validation
of protocol' this might be, but did not find anything. Could this be a bug
within WAS, or is something wrong here within the validation modules.
It would be great if some of the developers can help. If this is a bug
within WAS, I can open a PMR with IBM, but they obviously request some
more information about this and I'm not quite sure what leads to this
problem.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Heiko
--
Dr.-Ing. Heiko Kopp
If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that you have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for your cooperation.
Re: MyFaces ExtVal at WAS 8.0.0.4 - Call in violation of protocol
Posted by Gerhard Petracek <ge...@gmail.com>.
hi heiko,
imo it isn't an issue in extval.
you can check if both jar-files (extval-core and extval-bv-module) are
packaged correctly (in the application).
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2012/10/8 <it...@daimler.com>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I'm currently porting an application and wanted to use MyFaces ExtVal for
> Bean Validation. Our application needs to run under WebSphere Application
> Server 8.0.0.4. I'm currently using the following maven dependency within
> the WAR project:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.validation-modules</
> groupId>
> <artifactId>myfaces-extval-bean-validation</artifactId>
> <version>2.0.5</version>
> <exclusions>
> <exclusion>
> <artifactId>validation-api</artifactId>
> <groupId>javax.validation</groupId>
> </exclusion>
> </exclusions>
> </dependency>
>
> It occured weird to me that I have to exclude the validation API but
> WebSphere seems to bring it's own which is somehow incompatible. However
> that is not the problem. When deploying the application, I get multiple
> messages of the following kind:
>
> [08.10.12 07:44:30:883 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@1546284787 ] for method [
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1496780783 (
>
> org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
> ) ] Name [ null ] Description [
>
> Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
> ] Call in violation of protocol
> [08.10.12 07:44:32:836 CEST] 00000008 visitor W
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.AnnotationInfoDefaultVisitor visitAnnotation [
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.InfoVisitor@-16051367 ] for method [
> com.ibm.ws.amm.scan.util.info.impl.MethodInfoImpl@1207608866 (
>
> org.apache.myfaces.extensions.validator.beanval.annotation.BeanValidation.modelValidation
> ) ] Name [ null ] Description [
>
> Lorg/apache/myfaces/extensions/validator/beanval/annotation/ModelValidation;
> ] Call in violation of protocol
>
> The application itself works fine, as these are only warnings, BUT the
> deployment and start process of the application is heavily slowed down. It
> seems, WAS does not like something within the validation classes. I've
> tried to get some more information about what kind of 'call in validation
> of protocol' this might be, but did not find anything. Could this be a bug
> within WAS, or is something wrong here within the validation modules.
>
> It would be great if some of the developers can help. If this is a bug
> within WAS, I can open a PMR with IBM, but they obviously request some
> more information about this and I'm not quite sure what leads to this
> problem.
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Best regards,
>
> Heiko
>
> --
> Dr.-Ing. Heiko Kopp
>
> If you are not the intended addressee, please inform us immediately that
> you have received this e-mail in error, and delete it. We thank you for
> your cooperation.