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
> > > 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.