You mean somebody with an application having the following producer will conflict with the proposal.

```
@Produces
ValidatorFactory produceValidatorFactory() {...}
//or
@Produces
Validator produceValidator() {...}
```

Is that correct? I am a bit surprised though. Validator and ValidatorFactory are already provided by CDI 1.0 so I imagine a non qualified producer like the on atop would already conflict. Am I right?

On 4 janv. 2012, at 12:18, Gerhard Petracek wrote:

that's possible as well (for sure - e.g. myfaces codi (bv-module) already provides such producers), but it can cause compatibility issues with existing applications
(it won’t be an issue with myfaces codi because it uses a qualifier, but it will be an issue with applications which have to switch from bv 1.0 to 1.1 and have producers without a qualifier).
if we agree on it, we should think about a config entry to deactivate the producer (it would trigger an invocation of ProcessAnnotatedType#veto for the producer).

in any case: it's still restricted to cdi.

regards,
gerhard



2012/1/4 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel@hibernate.org>
Gerhard pointed out a mistake. I mean @Produces or a producer generally. There is no such thing as a @Provider annotation.

I've got a tangential question. Does CDI have a way to let libraries self declare producers like that? Obviously the BV jar won't be scanned and won't contain a bean.xml?


On 4 janv. 2012, at 11:19, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:

The point of Hardy (and Gunnar) is that in a DI environment, the Validator(Factory) lifecycle would most likely be handled by the DI framework and thus that the DI could provide proper injected instance to the BV bootstrap. I have to admit I had not completely seen it that way.

The BV spec / RI could provide the portable CDI @Provider that implements this logic. For other DIs, they will need to be responsible for it.

We will see how that plays but in a few ways it requires the DI environment to be aware of the content of validation.xml, we need to prototype that to see if that works well.

On 4 janv. 2012, at 11:13, Gerhard Petracek wrote:

hi hardy,

you won't get dependency injection support with manual bootstrapping (btw. you would have to use the class of a >concrete< cdi implementation - and that isn't portable).
with the service-loader approach a new method for ValidatorContext is also optional.

regards,
gerhard



2012/1/4 Hardy Ferentschik <hardy@hibernate.org>
Hi,

I prefer option 3 for its simplicity and the fact that it does not change the current bootstrap API.
As you already say,  integration is completely managed by the CDI-side in which case I don't see why it
CDI could not manage MessageInterpolator and TraversableResolver as well.

I also think that Gunnar has a point that introducing InstanceProvider creates some confusion with
the existing API. I also agree that CDI should know about BV, but not the other way around.

--Hardy



On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> #### Option 1: Add a Method to inject the BeanManager instance on Bean Validation bootstrap sequence
>
> One approach would be to let the container set a `BeanManager` instance
>
>    ValidatorFactory factory = Validation
>        .byDefaultProvider()
>        .configure()
>            .cdiBeanManager(beanManager)
>         .buildValidatorFactory();
>
> However that would add a hard dependency between CDI and Bean Validation which is probably not welcomed.
>
> An alternative is to use an untyped version (which should probably be favored):
>
>
>    ValidatorFactory factory = Validation
>        .byDefaultProvider()
>        .configure()
>            // T cdiBeanManager(Object beanManager) //raises an exception if that's not a BeanManager
>            .cdiBeanManager(beanManager)
>         .buildValidatorFactory();
>
>
> vs
>
>    ValidatorFactory factory = Validation
>        .byDefaultProvider()
>        .configure()
>            //raises an exception if that's not a BeanManager
>            .addObject(Validation.CDI_BEAN_MANAGER, beanManager) // T addObject(String key, Objet value)
>         .buildValidatorFactory();
>
> I however feel chagrined that the nicely typed `Configuration` API requires such untyped approach.
> (I don't think introducing CdiBeanManagerFactory solves any issue, is that true?).
>
>
> - have an untyped version of the above proposal
> - offer a generic `Map<String,Object> addObject(String key, Object value)` method on `Configuration`
>
> #### Option 2: Use CDI facility to retrive the current `BeanManager`
>
> CDI exposes `BeanManager` via JNDI in EE, we could use it.
>
> Also CDI 1.1 offers programmatic lookup via the CDI class, see EDR1 spec for details.
> <http://docs.jboss.org/cdi/spec/1.1.EDR1/html/spi.html#provider>
>
> #### Option 3: Ask CDI to inject a CDI aware `ConstraintValidatorFactory` when creating the `ValidatorFactory` object
>
> Another idea would be to integrate BV/CDI via a CDI-aware `ConstraintValidatorFactory` to be provided by CDI runtimes:
>
>    ValidatorFactory factory = Validation
>        .byDefaultProvider()
>        .configure()
>            .constraintValidatorFactory( new CdiAwareConstraintValidatorFactory( beanManager ) )
>        .buildValidatorFactory();
>
> That way the integration is completely managed by the CDI-side. `Validator` and `ValidatorFactory` are already
> built-in beans in CDI so this wouldn't add much complexity.
> The CDI runtime would use this factory whenever a `Validator` or `ValidatorFactory` is retrieved.
>
> #### Option 4: Add a method accepting an `InstanceProvider` implementation in Bean Validation's bootstrap
>
>    ValidatorFactory factory = Validation
>        .byDefaultProvider()
>        .configure()
>            .instanceProvider(cdiInstanceProvider)
>         .buildValidatorFactory();
>
>    public interface InstanceProvider {
>        public <T> T createInstance(Class<T> type);
>        public destroyInstance(Object instance);
>    }
>
> The default implementation can be the no-arg constructor we have today. We can either ask CDI to
> provide a `CDIInstanceProvider` at `ValidatorFactory` creation like in option 3 or make it the
> default implementation if CDI is present according to option 2.
>
> This option works fine as long as we don't require more complex object creation logic.
>


_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev

_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev


_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev


_______________________________________________
beanvalidation-dev mailing list
beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev