[icedtea-web] RFC: add support for validating the deployment configuration

[Deepak Bhole]

* Omair Majid <omajid at redhat.com> [2010-12-09 16:22]:
> On 12/09/2010 03:43 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> >* Omair Majid<omajid at redhat.com>  [2010-12-09 12:12]:
> >Looks okay to me. Not sure if we should be using a 'default' value
> >instead though.. what does the reference impl. do?
> 
> Hm.. good point, I hadnt checked that. I have tried it out now, and
> here are my observations.
> 
> I tried adding a few malformed and invalid entries and it seems to
> run without any problems. I tried using a url as a cache location
> (which is not allowed) and I did not see any files being cached in
> the default location. As far as I can see, any invalid entries are
> silently ignored and some sane value (_not_ necessarily the default
> value) is substituted instead. In general, even with incorrect
> properties, javaws works - no error messages, nothing printed to the
> console and the invalid entries in the properties file are not
> modified.
> 
> If you like, I can leave out the part where incorrect values are
> replaced with default values (after all, everywhere in the code
> where a configuration is used, it is checked for being valid first)
> - the rest of the validation is still useful for doing command line
> and GUI validation and informing the user.
> 
> The important thing, I suppose, is that we should somehow tell user
> that something is wrong, but still run all JNLPs and applets.
>

Agreed. Since the ri does replace it with some value rather than just
notifying the user, I guess there is no harm in using the default value.
It'd be nice though if it were made so that the user is made aware that
the values are wrong, and that default values are being used instead
(notified via the GUI I mean, for cases where launch is from browser).

That way they can fix it for the next run instead of it continuing to
use values that the user may not want.

Cheers,
Deepak

 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> Omair