Keith- Skipping over the conversation of American colloquialisms (which would be very fun at another time, because we have a lot of 'em), I'd like to discuss the ValidationContext a bit. A (very) quick glance through the code gives me the impression it was written more for the marshalling process than unmarshalling. Do you think it is amenable to both processes?
I was thinking in a more general sense of just allowing the user to specify an ErrorHandler (similar to EntityResolver, just add an Unmarshaller.setErrorHandler method, if undefined, use a fail fast system to mirror current practice) while providing a few basic ones in the Castor distribution (to steal your terms, FailFastErrorHandler and FailOnFatalErrorHandler). Longer term I was thinking a StatefulErrorHandler would be nice, but it really depends on how much information the ErrorHandler could get out of the UnmarshalListener at runtime. This might be more along the lines of the ValidationContext, but my brain isn't combining the two real well yet. In any case, let me know your thoughts (and everyone else is free to throw in US$0.02 also). Thanks, Stephen On 3/24/06, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For those of you not being natively English, have a look at > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guys > > Where it (to my own surprise) it is stated that 'guys' really can be used in > the sense as descibed by Keith. > > Guy, noun > 1. Informal A man; a fellow. > 2. guys Informal *** Persons of either sex. *** > 3. Chiefly British A person of odd or grotesque appearance or dress. > > And I thought for a second that Keith is making up a story ... ;-) > > Werner > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Visco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Freitag, 24. März 2006 07:44 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [castor-user] When unmarshalling, need Castor to > > validate entire document against schema instead of quitting > > after first validation error > > > > > > Oops. I just got a private e-mail from an observant member > > pointing out my lack of attention to detail. Just to be > > clear, I used the term "guys" > > in a strictly generic way which included both genders. I > > should be more careful to use gender-non-specific terms when > > addressing more than one person. My apologies to the female audience. > > > > --Keith > > > > Keith Visco wrote: > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > Take a look at ValidationContext and ValidationException. I already > > > started the groundwork for this. You'll see that > > ValidationException > > > already supports chaining and ValidationContext has a > > fail-fast flag. > > > Unfortunately, disabling fail-fast has not yet been > > implemented, but > > > it was definately on my to-do list. I don't think it would be that > > > difficult to implement for the Marshaller...but doing so in a "safe" > > > manner during unmarshalling may be a bit more challenging. > > > > > > --Keith > > > > > > Werner Guttmann wrote: > > > > > >> Stephen, Patty > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Stephen Bash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: > > Donnerstag, 23. > > >>> März 2006 14:45 > > >>> To: [email protected] > > >>> Subject: Re: [castor-user] When unmarshalling, need Castor to > > >>> validate entire document against schema instead of quitting after > > >>> first validation error > > >>> > > >>> Patty- > > >>> > > >>> Unfortunately, I don't think you can replace the ErrorHandler in > > >>> such a way that the change will stick. When you call > > unmarshal, the > > >>> Unmarshaller sets the error handler just before starting > > parsing. > > >>> So that means the fix needs to live inside Castor, unless > > we create > > >>> a method for user-supplied ErrorHandlers. > > >> > > >> > > >> If we decide to do so, why not a similar mechanism to DTDResolver, > > >> which allows some sort of chaining. > > >> > > >> Werner > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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] > ------------------------------------------------- > >
