On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Daniel Schwager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rahul, > > if you use attributes not defined in an customer actionclass (means, > there are not > getter/setter in the action-class for these attributes), SCXML will not > fail. > > I think, using undefined attributes (=without getter/setter) should end > with an failure. What do you think ? > <snip/>
You mean parse failure? That wouldn't be in line with the functioning of the rest of the library (same thing will happen with elements in the SCXML namespace) and probably non-trivial to implement (we may have to extend the underlying digester functionality in this regard). More importantly, IMO, SCXML documents should be able to support attributes in other namespaces on various elements for compound document scenarios, and this adds further complexity. I think the important question is why the undefined attributes are getting added in the first place. IMO, a more appropriate take on this might be to introduce better tooling on the authoring side and / or introduce validation tools such as an augmented schema for SCXML + your custom actions. -Rahul > regards > Danny > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
