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

[Omair Majid]

On 12/13/2010 05:16 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> * Omair Majid<omajid at redhat.com>  [2010-12-13 17:06]:
>> On 12/13/2010 02:46 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>>> * 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.
>>>
>>
>> If it's all right, I would like to address this in a separate patch.
>> I can have a dialog pop up telling the user the error in the
>> configuration. I am also working on adding something to the control
>> panel to make it show all the problematic settings and where they
>> come from.
>>
>
> Sure, that is fine. In that case, original patch is ok for HEAD.
>

Thanks; I have have pushed the changeset to HEAD.

Cheers,
Omair