myfaces-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <>
Subject Re: Bug EXTVAL-130?
Date Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:16:06 GMT
hi gerald,

@ veto:
ClassDeactivator is just for classes which are listed in config files of
cdi, jsf,... (and the specs. don't provide a possibility to disable them).
in your case you just need the std. ProcessAnnotatedType#veto provided by
cdi itself.

@ BeanValidation#modelValidation

i wrote both (the annotation as well as the add-on) -> i'm happy if you can
use one of both.
however, please note that they work differently.
the add-on triggers class-level validation (for special classes) at the end
of the validation-phase of the request-lifecycle and
BeanValidation#modelValidation is just the integration of class-level
validation which gets triggered at the end of the update-model-values

@ snapshot repository:
see [1]



Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
JavaEE Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

2012/12/5 Gerald Turner <>

> Hi Gerhard, thanks for the response!
> Gerhard Petracek <> writes:
> > @codi + seam
> > yes - that's possible.
> > it depends on what you are using from both.
> > e.g. in case of the jsf-module of codi + seam-faces you have to veto
> > one of the producers for the FacesContext.
> Exactly, jsf/faces modules from both.  Is vetoing done with
> ClassDeactivator and writing a service-loader file?
> > @ "No CreationalContext registered for EL evaluation, it is likely
> > that the the expression factory has not been wrapped by the CDI
> > BeanManager, which must be done to use the ELResolver from CDI":
> >
> > ... sounds like an as7 issue. it occurs during the rendering process
> > (see e.g. UIComponentBase#encodeBegin) -> as7 has to ensure that all
> > parts of cdi and jsf are up and running.
> I spent some time digging around the issue going on a tip from JIRA
> issue EXTVAL-140 (thanks Igor Guimaraes) - looks like it's a Weld bug.
> Weld ELResolver#getValue implementation will fail unless it's nested in
> a stack evaluating a Weld ValueExpression or MethodExpression.  OTOH,
> ValueExpression#getValue works every time.  Even stranger is that when I
> revert the project from CODI to Seam3, Weld ELResolver#getValue will
> return nulls instead of throwing an exception.  Attached is a dummy
> RENDER_RESPONSE PhaseListener that exhibits the bug (all the
> "tryELResolver" tests fail while all the "tryValueExpression" tests
> succeed).  I'll work on reporting this to Weld.  Is there any chance a
> work-around could be added to ExtVal 2.0.7-SNAPSHOT? (i.e. using a
> ValueExpression instead of ELResolver for BV startup)
> > @enabling injection via @Advanced:
> > the only known (and already fixed) issue is [1].
> Is there a public maven repository where I can link 1.0.6-SNAPSHOT?
> > just fyi (since you wrote "JSR-303 cross-field validation").
> > annotations like @DateIs were introduced before the bv-spec. was
> > released and don't use the bv-api at all (that's the reason why they
> > are in a different validation module).
> > you would need e.g. [2] to use the bv-api with a thin layer to allow
> > bv based cross-field validation.
> I was wrong about my original statement that cross-field validation
> wasn't working (whereas @DateIs was working)… they're both working.
> I had this question on the mailing list in March and you pointed me at
> the extension then too.  I didn't have to use the extension you wrote.
> I'm using the following ExtVal-BV annotation on the fields of a CDI bean
> that I want cross-validation:
>   @BeanValidation(modelValidation=@ModelValidation(isActive=true))
> …this has been working great - am I missing something?
> --
> Gerald Turner   Email:   JID:
> GPG: 0xFA8CD6D5  21D9 B2E8 7FE7 F19E 5F7D  4D0C 3FA0 810F FA8C D6D5

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