DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5272>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5272

Problems using Xerces2 beta 3 incremental





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2001-12-13 06:14 -------
> Thought I have no idea what axes113 or lre13 mean

Standard Xalan conformance testcases in the test\tests\conf\* directories.

>When an xml file is parsed in the pull-parsing mode, the parse(boolean) 
>method is called on the configuration (not on the sax parser, I guess 
>because it doesn't have a pull-parse method).

Bingo. Xerces2b3, unlike Xerces1, does not expose a direct way to request 
incremental parsing with SAX output -- its incremental controls are only 
available at the XNI level, requiring that we use this somewhat ugly mixed 
metaphor of constructing a SAX parser and then ripping into its guts to find the 
controls we need. Not well documented, and not a great approach.


>   fIncrementalParser.reset();

OK, I'll give that a spin and we'll see how it works...

>But it might be an enhancement for Xerces to 
>provide pull-parse method on XMLReader interface.

Please!

The ideal from my point of view would be to restore the Xerces1 incremental API, 
which would also give us some backward-compatability (and would let me avoid all 
the reflection nonsense I'm having to do to support both variants without 
compile-time dependencies). 

But anything that would allow me to operate entirely with simple, 
well-documented APIs would be a great improvement. The solution Andy gave me 
works, and I appreciate the assist, but to be perfectly honest it scares me; it 
isn't well documented, and its interaction with other operations (configuring 
the parser, for example) isn't entirely clear.


BTW, the non-incremental report _was_ an error. There was a case where Xalan was 
defaulting into incremental mode despite the user not having requested it. 
(We're backing that feature out, for clarity's sake.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to