Hi Ruchith, the sslConfig assertion is cutom - e.g. not presented in the xsd chema but it still processed without errors....so it is not validated?
Regards, Nencho 2007/7/11, Ruchith Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well ... I believe when we are parsing the assertion we automatically validate the assertions in the respective builders. Thanks, Ruchith On 7/11/07, Angel Todorov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ruchith, > > The question is not only about documenting it, but also about validating it. > Does rampart currently validate against the XSD ? Thanks. > > Regards, > Angel > > > On 7/10/07, Ruchith Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmm ... This raises the issue of us not having documented the schema > > of RampartConfig :-) ... I'll create a JIRA on this ! > > > > Thanks, > > Ruchith > > > > On 6/27/07, Nencho Lupanov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > recently i fixed a bug in rampart that prevented the usage of ssl > encyption > > > in a transport binding policy.That fix use a custom rampart assertion > that > > > is new to the rampart config....this fix is already adopted - you can > check > > > the jira request at: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAMPART-42?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12496738 > > > > > > My question is - do we need to change also the rampart policy schema? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Nencho > > > > > > -- > > www.ruchith.org > > www.wso2.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- www.ruchith.org www.wso2.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
