Ok then, I'll upgrade X + X and remove the unnecessary test methods. On 08.08.2005 21:44:56 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 09:20:19AM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 07.08.2005 20:41:42 Simon Pepping wrote: > > > I have always commented this test out in my working copy. I do not > > > like tests that actually (also) test the exact innards of certain > > > Xerces and Xalan versions. > > > > They were not supposed to check the innards of certain Xerces and Xalan > > versions. The tests check the basic functionality of the FOP API. Given > > that most of the directy dependencies on the input source are now removed > > (only getDefaultHandler() remains) we can probably remove some of those > > methods, especially the DOM-related ones. Do you agree? > > That is right. Since FOP receives the data in all cases as a SAX > content handler, the different tests do not make a difference for FOP > anymore. > > > > I have got several copies of those two on my system, and I use them > > > via the endorsed-dirs mechanism. Some scripts use a different copy > > > than others, and for me FOP should just work with any recent parser > > > and transformer. > > > > That's right, but there's simply the fact the there were a lot of little > > bugs in the TraX portion of Xalan WRT DOM. There's not much we can do > > about that in FOP. > > That could be. I have just worked around the annoyance that the test > failed for reasons that I could not understand or change. But this > means that people get exceptions when they do this kind of work with > FOP and older versions of X + X. That is indeed a reason to upgrade > them in FOP's distribution. > > > > IMHO An upgrade of the jars in FOP does not solve the > > > problem of this test file. > > > > Any additional ideas? > > Not really, esp. if it is suspected that it is a bug in X + X.
Jeremias Maerki
