I was looking around the castor site and I couldn't find anything to tell me why the validation changed after 0.9.6. Any body have a clue?
On 10/14/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK - here is something a little bizarre. > > 0.9.6 generates code in the descriptor class that has maxlength validation > > 0.9.7 and 0.9.9 do not. I'm not sure if this is a bug or if I am now > missing something in my build file or my castor properties to get the > same behavior out of the later releases. > > > Any ideas? > > On 10/14/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that's what I thought! and I am using the SourceGenerator. > > > > OK - I think this may be part of my problem - here is a snippet of the > > schema > > > > <xsd:complexType name="C-14"> > > <xsd:simpleContent> > > <xsd:extension base="C-14_NoID"> > > <xsd:attribute name="id" type="ID"/> > > </xsd:extension> > > </xsd:simpleContent> > > </xsd:complexType> > > <xsd:simpleType name="C-14_NoID"> > > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> > > <xsd:maxLength value="14"/> > > <xsd:minLength value="1"/> > > </xsd:restriction> > > </xsd:simpleType> > > > > > > I am trying to get the C-14 type to validate, except the restriction > > is on the C-14_NoID node, and when I look at the Descriptor class the > > getExtends is always null. Which is why I think that I'm not getting > > the validation I think I should be getting. > > > > No objects are generated that have anything to do with C-14_NoID. > > > > Do I need to let the sourcegenerator know anything special to get it > > to generate the extended nodes? > > > > > > Thanks again for the help! > > Danny > > > > On 10/13/05, Keith Visco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Danny, > > > > > > Castor will, by default, validate the object model prior to the > > > marshalling process. If you're using the source generator then the > > > generated descriptors contain some validation attributes that Castor > > > will use during this validation process. If you're not using the source > > > generator you'd have to create your own validators or validation step. > > > > > > Castor's object model validation is not as "complete" as validating the > > > XML itself with the parser, but it should provide you with the basic > > > property level validation, so in your situation the strings that are too > > > long should be validated by Castor's object model validation process. > > > > > > If you open up the *Descriptor.java files you'll see the validation code > > > to give you an idea of what Castor will validate against. > > > > > > --Keith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Danny Collins wrote: > > > > AHA! Yeah I am trying to go from Java->XML and get the same level of > > > > validation that you would get when you go form XML->JAVA. > > > > > > > > We are already exploring adding in our own validation step. I was just > > > > hoping to leverage anything that castor provided. > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > Danny > > > > > > > > On 10/13/05, Stephen Bash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>Danny- > > > >> > > > >>Are you validating during xml->java or java->xml? The properties given > > > >>tell the xml parser to validate against a given schema, but during > > > >>java->xml, I don't believe the parser is utilized (there might be an > > > >>option that I don't know about). My first idea would be to generate the > > > >>xml from the java objects, and then run that xml through a validating > > > >>parser to determine if the xml conforms to the schema. > > > >> > > > >>I should mention that I don't use the source generator much at all, so > > > >>there may be options in there to help with validation that I don't know > > > >>about. > > > >> > > > >>Stephen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>Danny Collins wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>OK - popped those attributes into my properties file - regenerated the > > > >>>source code and the fed the objects a ton of invalid data - mainly > > > >>>strings that are WAY too long and should fail validation and will if I > > > >>>do > > > >>> > > > >>>I've attached my castor properties file. > > > >>> > > > >>>I am trying to validate an individual object in the castor graph - > > > >>>that is a piece of the schema. > > > >>> > > > >>>do I need to build out the entire object graph in order for it to > > > >>>validate correctly? > > > >>> > > > >>>Thanks again, you all are being very helpful! > > > >>>Danny > > > >>> > > > >>>On 10/13/05, Danny Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>SWEET! Thanks for pointing this out. I am going to give it a go > > > >>>>straight away and let you know if it works out for me! > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Thanks again guys. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>On 10/13/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>Yes, as recently added to the XML F.A.Q. (though not released yet): > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>><p>To enable XML validation at the parser level, please add > > > >>>>>properties > > > >>>>>to your > > > >>>>><tt>castor.properties</tt> file as follows:</p> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>><code> > > > >>>>> org.exolab.castor.parser.namespaces=true > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>org.exolab.castor.sax.features=http://xml.org/sax/features/validation,\ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/schema,\ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>http://apache.org/xml/features/validation/schema-full-checking > > > >>>>></code> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>><p>Please note that the example given relies on the use of Apache > > > >>>>>Xerces, hence the > > > >>>>><tt>apache.org</tt> properties; similar options should exist for > > > >>>>>other > > > >>>>>parsers.</p> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>I hope this helps > > > >>>>>Werner > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>wg> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>wg> From: Danny Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>wg> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:49 PM > > > >>>>>wg> To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>wg> Subject: Re: [castor-user] Schema Validation > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> My original thought was that a call to validate prior to > > > >>>>>wg> Marshal would work. But that doesn't seem to do anything. > > > >>>>>wg> Then I found a reference to a property in the > > > >>>>>wg> castor.properties file called > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> org.exolab.castor.marshalling.validation > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> that I have tried with true and false to no avail. > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> Any thing else that I should know about? > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> TIA > > > >>>>>wg> Danny > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> On 10/13/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>wg> > Danny, > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > No, you are not. How are you instructing the XML parser > > > >>>>>wg> (via Castor) > > > >>>>>wg> > to use XML Schema validation ? > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > Werner > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> From: Danny Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:35 PM > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Subject: [castor-user] Schema Validation > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Hello, > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> I seem to be having problems getting the my objects > > > >>>>>validated > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> against the schema - it seems to be able to tell me if I am > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> missing required objects, but it doesn't seem to be able to > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> validate other restrictions like maxlength. Am I > > > >>>>>wg> misinterpreting > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> the validation abilities? > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> TIA > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> Danny > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > >>>>>wg> send an empty > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> message to the following address: > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty > > > >>>>>wg> > message to the following address: > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>wg> > ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an > > > >>>>>wg> empty message to the following address: > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>wg> ------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>>wg> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > >>>>>send an empty message to the following address: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> > > > >>>------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > >>>send an empty message to the following address: > > > >>> > > > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > >>------------------------------------------------- > > > >>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > >>send an empty message to the following address: > > > >> > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>------------------------------------------------- > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > > send an empty message to the following address: > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > > send an empty message to the following address: > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty message to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------
