cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Johnson, Eric" <>
Subject RE: [PLEASE [DISCUSS]] Spring validation
Date Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:20:53 GMT
>From a usability standpoint, Glen is correct. It is better to have user's file validated
by default so that they fail fast and have a good warning message about the cause.
It would also be a good usability tact to have the property that controls validation have
a cxf prefix to make it clear that it is a cxf thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Mazza []
Sent: Thu 3/13/2008 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [PLEASE [DISCUSS]] Spring validation
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

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.


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.

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