> > 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.
This is not an XML parsing topic, I agree with you.
But using your errorreporter listener
scxmlExecutor.setErrorReporter(new SimpleErrorReporter())
to report such a "problem" would be nice and easy ..
>
> I think the important question is why the undefined attributes are
> getting added in the first place.
e.g. typing errors or change of Actions without modifing the model....
> 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.
Sure - but there is not such a tool and it's a lot of work to write one
for checking consistence and semantic of stuff like
- states
- events
- action attributes
- ....
Regards
Danny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
