Am 20.07.2011 13:26, schrieb Michael Glavassevich:
Thomas,
Have you read this thread [1]? What you're observing for
EntityResolver2 is probably due to the same change.
Hi,
yes this is exactly the same issue I ran to it here. Don't know if it is
a good idea to change the behavior here. I use the EntityResolver2
interface as this allows systemId to be relative and be interpreted by
the implementation as opposed to the EntityResolver interface, where it
is always expanded to an absolute URI. If xerces as no clue about the
baseURI (source is inputstream, e.g. blob from database), it expands it
to the current directory, where the Java process is started. Or else it
uses the baseURI to expand it by itself.
For example the standard parser of Oracle Java 6 SDK, does not do that.
It is extremely sad, that Xerces 2.11.0 puts some logic into it, when
this is expected to handled by the implementation of EntityResolver2.
What makes this even more inconsistent is the fact, that XML Schema
documents requested by other XML Schema documents are indeed requested
as a relative URI.
Until 2.11.0 I could trust that a absolute URI is valid and that
relative URIs could be loaded as a resource from the classpath of my
implementation. Now I have to restore the "relative information" by
guessing it from the supplied URI. And guessing is most times a bad thing.
I wonder if there is no other way to fix XERCESJ-809, without breaking
compatibility. Apart of that I could not understand the description of
the mentioned bug.
regards
Thomas Scheffler
[1] http://xerces.markmail.org/thread/zpazk5bukquyijan
> Hi,
>
> after an upgrade from xerces 2.9 to 2.11.0 I noticed a different
> behavior with a EntityResolver2 implementation.
>
> If I parse an XML file with a schema defined with a relative
> systemId, Xerces always resolves the systemId to an absolute one.
> This is the behavior of the EntityResolver interface and should not
> be the same with EntityResolver2, where the implementation should
> resolve relative systemIds.
>
> Should I file a bug for this? This is a rather urgent problem and
> I cannot move back to 2.9.0, as this version cannot validate MODS
> documents correctly.
>
> regards
>
> Thomas Scheffler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: j-users-unsubscr...@xerces.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: j-users-h...@xerces.apache.org
