Hi Mukul, and thanks for the fast reply :)

Few comments inline.
Adrian.

P.S. Anyone tried to use the Xalan processor distributed with Sun's JRE?


On 09/05/2010 18:38, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
Though this questions is more appropriate for an Eclipse forum. But
here are some hints, which might help,

Try having your extension classes in the Eclipse run-time classpath (I
remember, there's something like a "classpath" tab in Eclipse 'run
configuration', where you could do this).

Seems that there is something wrong with Xalan distributed with Sun's JRE.
I tried to use the ExpressionContext interface in my extension functions and it is not available.


btw, I'm curious that, you refer a java class as, com....@%#$%@#^#%#$.

What I tried to emphasize is that the class name is completely ignored.
The XSL processor always tries to activate methods in the java.lang.String class!

I guess, this could not be a real class name. Perhaps, this is a
mailer feature, or you might have manually written a non-significant
class-name string for confidentiality. These are all my guesses :)

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Adrian Herscu<adrian.her...@gmail.com>  wrote:
I am trying to test an XSL extension function by launching the XSL from
Eclipse -- so far, with no success :(

The configuration is as follows:
1. Eclipse Galileo with the XSL feature
2. Defined an XSL run configuration with the Xalan 2.7.1 processor

I am able to launch the XSL transformation, however the reference to my
custom Java extension class is ignored.

This is my XSL header:

<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
  xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform";
xmlns:tl="http://foo.com//lang/1.0";
  xmlns:tc="http://qcore.com/pump/testing/commands/1.0";
xmlns:xalan="http://xml.apache.org/xalan";
  xmlns:utils="com....@%#$%@#^#%#$"
  extension-element-prefixes="utils">


I discovered that no matter what the contents of xmlns:util are, the XSL
process treats them as "java.lang"; that is, all java.lang classes are
available and called successfully!

Any suggestion(s)?
What should I check further?

Thanks in advance,
Adrian.




Reply via email to