Gabriel Roldán ha scritto: > On Wednesday 02 April 2008 04:54:47 pm Justin Deoliveira wrote: >> Generally in cases like these, i will insert a "leniency hack" if we >> used to support the behavior, because technically its a regression. > But you mean a "configurable" hack? like to enable it from the ui or > something? or just a silent hack?
I would like it as default behaviour, and become picky when the cite hacks are turned on. >> I am also usually for being lenient with xml requests in general. But if >> there is strong opposition to this I could go either way. > Not a strong opposition but a bad smell. Its a regression because we used to > be tolerant with the validity of the xml requests we received, or because we > used to be dumber at parsing? > It smells bad because that request is a valid xml, its just saying the > namespace for the "states" type is the request default one, so going through > the request and assuming that someone using the request default namespace for > the typename is wrong is a double edged knife... That's what we used to do, so we're breaking existing clients that were coded against geoserver < 1.6.x (like udig). This is a regression in my book. Also, how is it that the default namespace of xml elements gets inherited by the value of an element? Is this standard behaviour? Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
