cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PLEASE [DISCUSS]] Spring validation
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:21:00 GMT
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.
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message