I'll give it a shake to see if I observe anything different.
At 08:33 08.10.2002 -0700, you wrote: >The build.bat that I created to build the src explicitly lists which jars to >include in the classpath when invoking ant (it is not the version that >builds up the classpath dynamically from the lib dir contents). I replaced >jaxp.jar and crimson.jar in this classpath with xercesImpl.jar and >xercesXmlApis.jar. Using either versions 2.1 or 2.2, I do not get any >failures during the unit tests. So, either something is going on I don't >understand (and after the Tomcat/jar loading fiasco, it is possible) or the >test cases do not exercise the parser in such a way to cause a failure. > >One difference might be that the log4j code is used in class directory >format instead of from a build jar? I don't see why it would make a >difference. > >-Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:43 AM > > To: Log4J Developers List > > Subject: RE: DomConfigurator Entity Resolver update > > > > > > > > There is another way of course. One can simply replace the jar files > > in jakarta-ant-1.x/lib with the jar files of the desired parser. > > > > At 09:34 08.10.2002 +0200, you wrote: > > >That is correct. Here are the contents of my jakarta-ant-1.4/lib > > >directory: > > > > > >/java/jakarta-ant-1.4/lib# ls -la > > > 0 May 9 10:12 . > > > 0 Feb 16 2002 .. > > > 153 Sep 3 2001 README > > > 416389 Sep 3 2001 ant.jar > > > 196399 Sep 3 2001 crimson.jar > > > 468524 Feb 22 2002 jakarta-ant-1.4-optional.jar > > > 33323 Sep 3 2001 jaxp.jar > > > > > >As you can see in contains crimson.jar and jaxp.jar. These > > are visible > > >to the ant classloader which if I recall correctly is the parent of > > >the classloader that deals with: > > > > > > <path id="tests.classpath"> > > > <pathelement location="${project.source.home}"/> > > > <pathelement location="${project.classes.home}"/> > > > <pathelement location="${tests.source.home}"/> > > > <pathelement location="./classes"/> > > > <pathelement location="./resources"/> > > > <pathelement location="${jakarta.oro.jar}"/> > > > </path> > > > > > >(The above is from log4j-1.2.x/tests/build.xml). > > > > > >So I guess that XML parser shipped with ant hides the parser you are > > >trying to use. We can either try to fully understand the ant > > >classloading model or simply use both ant 1.4 and ant 1.5, the latter > > >ships with xerces2.... > > > > > >At 23:49 07.10.2002 -0700, you wrote: > > >>No error is reported using Xerces 2.1.0 with the test cases > > either... > > >> > > >>Unless there is something up with the classpath that is > > used with the JUnit > > >>tests. We don't specify any xml parser in the classpath > > reference in the > > >>test case build.xml, so I am assuming that it is inheriting the ant > > >>classpath as well as the classpath reference when running > > the JUnit task...? > > >> > > >>-Mark > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:43 PM > > >> > To: Log4J Developers List > > >> > Subject: RE: DomConfigurator Entity Resolver update > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Paul, > > >> > > > >> > Can you send me a sample xml file that causes the current > > >> > DOMConfigurator to > > >> > fail using Xerces 2.2? The test cases we have right > > now, there is no > > >> > failure thrown when using Xerces 2.2. They have a > > DOCTYPE definition like > > >> > this: > > >> > > > >> > <!DOCTYPE log4j:configuration SYSTEM "log4j.dtd"> > > >> > > > >> > thanks, > > >> > -Mark > > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > From: Paul Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >> > > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 8:45 AM > > >> > > To: Log4J Developers List > > >> > > Subject: RE: DomConfigurator Entity Resolver update > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Mark, > > >> > > > > >> > > The orginal code returned the log4j dtd if the filename in the > > >> > dtd started > > >> > > with file: and ended with log4j.dtd. This worked with xerces2.1 > > >> > but failed > > >> > > to work with xerces2.2 as the url with 2.2 was just > > log4j.dtd. So > > >> > > I changed > > >> > > the check to look just for a url ending in log4j.dtd. > > >> > > > > >> > > Paul > > >> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >> > > Sent: October 3, 2002 11:21 PM > > >> > > To: Log4J Developers List > > >> > > Subject: RE: DomConfigurator Entity Resolver update > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Paul, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks the the patched patch :-). Can you describe > > what problem the > > >> > > original version caused? > > >> > > > > >> > > I'm still going to look at applying the patch...soon... > > >> > > > > >> > > thanks, > > >> > > -Mark > > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > > >> > > > From: Paul Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:32 PM > > >> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > > Subject: DomConfigurator Entity Resolver update > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Guys, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I found a bug in the bug fix which stopped it working, the > > >> > file attached > > >> > > > fixes this problem. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Paul Austin > > >> > > > Galdos Systems Inc.(tm) > > >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > > Tel: +1 (604) 484-2761 > > >> > > > Fax: +1 (604) 484-2755 > > >> > > > http://www.galdosinc.com/ > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Privileged or confidential information may be > > contained in this > > >> > > > message. If > > >> > > > this message was not intended for you, destroy it > > and notify us > > >> > > > immediately. > > >> > > > Opinions, conclusions, recommendations, and other information > > >> > > presented in > > >> > > > this message are not given or necessarily endorsed by my > > >> > > employer or firm. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > >> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: > > >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >-- > > >Ceki > > > > > >TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be > > >conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > > >others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > -- > > Ceki > > > > TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be > > conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from > > others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
