cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Diephouse <dan.diepho...@mulesource.com>
Subject Re: [PLEASE [DISCUSS]] Spring validation
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:55:19 GMT
Have you tried creating multiple ApplicationContexts? i.e. create the 
first application context which is not validated with all the CXF files. 
Then create another with all the user files which has the first context 
as the parent.

Dan

Benson Margulies wrote:
> One more note for now: it's harder than I had hoped to be selective about
> validation, due to the modularity of Spring. I haven't given up yet.
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> The validation in question is of spring configuration files. It occurs,
>> first and foremost, as part of Bus initialization on both server and client.
>> It's the user's cxf.xml plus all the included files, and/or the invisible
>> process of loading a series of Spring XML files to set up the default bus.
>> The identifier spring.validation.mode was apparently invented by us, at
>> least as far as a quick google would indicate.
>>
>> From my point of view, it takes CXF a surprisingly long time to start up,
>> and so moving all validation from on by default to off by default appeals to
>> me. Documentation would seem to be an important aspect.
>>
>> However, if no one disagrees with your preference to leave validation in
>> general on by default but turn it off for our internal files, then I'll very
>> cheerfully do that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Glen Mazza <glen.mazza@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I don't know the full story here--is this validation occurring for web
>>> services or SOAP clients--which one is your main concern?  Also, is this
>>> validation occurring for *every* web service request (client side) or
>>> *each* web service processing (service side)--or just once?  Also, which
>>> config files are you speaking of--just the main cxf.xml one used for the
>>> bus?
>>>
>>> I suspect we do not need to be validating our own static configuration
>>> files (if any), but validating their config files would appear to make
>>> sense--this is something they can turn off if it performance is a
>>> problem for them.  For newbies, I think is is better to have validation
>>> over performance, even if it is not immediately obvious to the newbie
>>> how to optimize performance.
>>>
>>> Also, is this "spring.validation.mode" property a Spring default name
>>> (i.e., those working with Spring usually know about it)?  Then perhaps
>>> it would be best to keep using that property name.  Just as the benefits
>>> of working with Maven is that all projects run alike, a similar argument
>>> can be made for configuring Spring-based applications.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 13.03.2008, 03:54 -0400 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>       
>>>> This message is an outgrowth of my performance investigations.
>>>>
>>>> We are (still?) validating spring XML files by default, at high cost.
>>>>
>>>> We control validation with a system property with a name that doesn't
>>>>         
>>> say
>>>       
>>>> 'cxf' in it anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> I could submit the following change:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Add the name org.apache.cxf.spring.validation.mode as a
>>>>         
>>> (compatible)
>>>       
>>>> replacement for spring.validation.mode.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Treat the default as 'none'.
>>>>
>>>> Or, I could make the BusApplicationContext force validation off when
>>>>         
>>> reading
>>>       
>>>> any file with a pathname beginning with META-INF:/cxf (e.g., one of
>>>>         
>>> ours),
>>>       
>>>> so that users still get validation by default.
>>>>
>>>> Please send along thoughts.
>>>>         
>>>       
>
>   


-- 
Dan Diephouse
MuleSource
http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com 


Mime
View raw message