Berin,
actually there were (are) some problems during
the encryption processing in Content mode, in particular
the serialization of Document fragments (Document
fragments may have Text nodes as first level
child nodes - its a fragment).
The first problems was that Content mode didn't
serialize t
I get a permission denied on the web server :<.
Yeah.. I had some problems getting it on there.. some issue with my apache
config.. I was going to put it up somewhere else ran into some other
problem and out of time :)
I am away this weekend, but will try to put it up afterwards.
Out of interest
John,
Great stuff. Do you mind if I add to XSECDOMUtils?
Cheers (and thanks!)
Berin
John Moore wrote:
I dont know if it is of any help, but I have written a small C routine to walk
a DOM tree looking for signature elements and returning them one by one. Here
is the source:
// ---
Ahh. Yes. Apologies - had forgotten the part about the bug!
What think you - should we see if we can escalate with the Xerces
people? Am happy to do so!
Cheers,
Berin
Dittmann Werner wrote:
Berin,
actually there were (are) some problems during
the encryption processing in Content mod
Erwin van der Koogh wrote:
Also - I have some changes I have to upload sometime soon for the docs
for V1.1 of the C++ library. All of them are in Forrest format.
Go right ahead and upload them.. if we decide to change over to Maven
for the website I'll convert them again.. it's less than 10 mi
Erwin van der Koogh wrote:
Also - I have some changes I have to upload sometime soon for the docs
for V1.1 of the C++ library. All of them are in Forrest format.
Go right ahead and upload them.. if we decide to change over to Maven
for the website I'll convert them again.. it's less than 10 min
Berin,
AFAIK Dims wrote an e-mail to somebody of the
Xerces group and asked if they would fix the problem.
Don't know about the outcome.
After all, the Xerces guys are heavily working
on the serialization matter. But i'm not
aware if they fix it soon.
BTW, the Xerces Bugzilla # 25853 describes t
Werner,
We can't depend on a specific version of Xerces EVEN if they fix problems in their
code. So is
there a possibility of patching xml-security itself? (Write custom serializers just
like we do in
Axis)
thanks,
dims
--- Dittmann Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Berin,
>
> AFAIK Dims w
Dims,
in my workspace for xmlsec I have a version that uses
a c14n serializer to do the work. Because its a
xmlsec c14n serializer this eliminates the
Xerces dependency.
The main difference between this solution and the Xerces
based solution is the different handling of CDATA
serialization.
(c1
Surely it's better to say "if you have this bug then download a version of
Xerces greater than x.x" rather than "fixing" a bug in someone else's code
with a hack in yours? That's just asking for maintenance headaches isn't it?
-Original Message-
From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
Surely it's better to say "if you have this bug then download a version of
Xerces greater than x.x" rather than "fixing" a bug in someone else's code
with a hack in yours? That's just asking for maintenance headaches isn't
it?
Well.. right now we are dependent on Xerces for a single tiny Xerces-onl
Exactly my point. org.apache.xml.serialize.XMLSerializer,OutputFormat is used ONLY in
one file
namely XMLCipher.java. We are better off gaining compatability with any JAXP
compatible parser. We
are forcing people to use a specific xerces version EVEN if they have other parsers in
their
environm
12 matches
Mail list logo
