Licenses on XML files

[Anthony Baker]

I was adding licenses to XML files this weekend and noticed a problem.  This 
code expects a certain structure to the xml doc that doesn’t allow for a 
comment:

 /**
   * Build <code>cache</code> element map for given <cod>doc</code>'s
   * schemaLocation for {@link CacheXml#NAMESPACE}.
   *
   * @param doc
   *          {@link Document} to parse schema for.
   * @return Element map
   * @throws IOException
   * @throws ParserConfigurationException
   * @throws SAXException
   * @throws XPathExpressionException
   * @since 8.1
   */
  public static LinkedHashMap<String, CacheElement> buildElementMap(final 
Document doc) throws IOException, XPathExpressionException, SAXException, 
ParserConfigurationException {
    final Map<String, List<String>> schemaLocationMap = 
XmlUtils.buildSchemaLocationMap(
        getAttribute(doc.getFirstChild(), 
W3C_XML_SCHEMA_INSTANCE_ATTRIBUTE_SCHEMA_LOCATION, 
W3C_XML_SCHEMA_INSTANCE_NS_URI));

    final LinkedHashMap<String, CacheElement> elementMap = new 
LinkedHashMap<String, CacheElement>();

    buildElementMapCacheType(elementMap, resolveSchema(schemaLocationMap, 
CacheXml.NAMESPACE));

    // if we are ever concerned with the order of extensions or children 
process them here.

    return elementMap;
  }

If you add a license header to CacheElementJUnitTest.xml and run 
CacheElementJUnitTest you will get an NPE.


So two questions:

1) Do all of our test xml files need license headers (it does make the 
exclusion list for RAT simple)?
2) Is the code above correct?

Thanks,
Anthony

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail