geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Bean validation tck failures and JNDI contexts
Date Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:58:34 GMT

doing a naming lookup should only throw NamingExceptions.... so I think what should happen
is that the reference should wrap the ValidationException in a NamingException.  Will this
mess up the tck?

david jencks

On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> Hi Rick,
> The code that does the lookup is here in the jetty integration code: (GeronimoWebAppContext
near line 104)
>        try {
>            javax.naming.Context ctx = integrationContext.getComponentContext();
>            Object validatorFactory = ctx.lookup("comp/ValidatorFactory");
>            setAttribute("javax.faces.validator.beanValidator.ValidatorFactory", validatorFactory);
>        } catch (NamingException e) {
>            // ignore.  We just don't set the property if it's not available.
>        }
> I suspect it used to pass because we were only using default validatory factories so
we could always create one.  Either that, or we used to throw a NamingException when we failed
(the code you quote catches a naming exception....).
> I wonder if a better solution would be to also catch and ignore a ValidationException
> thanks
> david jencks
> On Oct 21, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>> I played around with different solutions and finally came up with something that
fixes the problem.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure what I did is legitimate or not.  The root
problem here is the naming reference implementations were throwing ValidationExceptions for
any failures with creating a ValidatorFactory.  This probably was the behavior that should
be implemented, but unfortunately, the getFederatedBindings() processing was triggering the
resolution of these objects and the resulting exceptions were causing deploy failures.  The
test cases in question were testing the very conditions that triggered the exceptions.  The
exception was raised, but at deploy time, resulting in a test case failure.
>> I managed to fix this by having the reference objects we bind into jndi catch the
exceptions and just return null.  Everything is passing in the TCK now, but I'm not sure returning
null is the correct thing to do here.
>> I'm not really sure how we every were passing 100% in the container with the original
code.  I would have thought that if the same sequence of calls were getting made to resolve
the provider, then some of the same failures would have been seen.  I'm going to hold off
on committing my changes until I get some feedback on this.
>> Rick
>> On 10/21/2010 7:48 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>> We're down to 13 bean validation failures in the tck now, but these failures
are a little puzzling.   The tests in error are all giving deploy failures, with the root
cause being an exception triggered by getFederatedBindings():
>>> java.lang.RuntimeException: javax.naming.NamingException: Validator [Root exception
is javax.validation.ValidationException: Unable to find suitable provider: class org.hibernate.jsr303.tck.common.TCKValidationProvider]
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.ContextUtil$ReadOnlyBinding.getObject(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.ContextFederation.getFederatedBindings(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.AbstractFederatedContext.getBindings(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.AbstractFederatedContext.getBinding(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.AbstractContext.lookup(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.naming.context.AbstractContext.lookup(
>>>       at org.apache.geronimo.jetty8.handler.GeronimoWebAppContext.<init>(
>>>       at org.apache.geronimo.jetty8.WebAppContextWrapper.<init>(
>>>       at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance0(Native Method)
>>>       at sun.reflect.NativeConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(
>>>       at sun.reflect.DelegatingConstructorAccessorImpl.newInstance(
>>>       at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.recipe.ReflectionUtil$ConstructorFactory.create(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.recipe.ObjectRecipe.internalCreate(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.recipe.AbstractRecipe.create(
>>>       at org.apache.xbean.recipe.AbstractRecipe.create(
>>>       at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstance.createInstance(
>>>       at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.attemptFullStart(
>>>       at org.apache.geronimo.gbean.runtime.GBeanInstanceState.start(
>>> The root cause of this failure is an exception in DefaultValidatorReference.getContent():
>>>   @Override
>>>   public  Object  getContent()throws  NamingException  {
>>>       ValidatorFactory  factory  =null;
>>>               try  {
>>>           factory  = (ValidatorFactory)new  InitialContext().lookup("java:comp/ValidatorFactory");
>>>       }catch(NamingException  e) {
>>>           factory  =Validation.buildDefaultValidatorFactory();
>>>       }
>>>               return  factory.getValidator();
>>>   }
>>> The root cause of this failure is the NamingException on the .lookup() call.
 Since this occurs during the building of the federated context, I suspect the initial context
is not initialized correctly at this phase.  There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here.
 The buildDefaultValidatorFactory() call is failing because the incorrect thread context classloader
is getting used to resolve the provider.
>>> The puzzling piece to me is why this process is making the getContent() calls
in the first place.  Since this binding will create a new instance each time it is requested,
either A) an instance is getting created needlessly and thrown away or B) this instance is
ending up bound to the JNDI context as a one-off, which would be an incorrect result.
>>> I think I can fix this by making the DefaultValidatorReference look up the ValidatorFactoryGBean
to obtain the factory used to create the ValidatorInstance rather than doing a jndi lookup,
but I want to verify that the lookup occurring at this point is the correct behavior and there's
not a better solution available.
>>> Rick

View raw message