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 23:47:09 GMT
That wouldn't help for the 'include' style, but it would for the 'find them
all in the classpath.'

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Dan Diephouse <dan.diephouse@mulesource.com>
wrote:

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