> Andy Clark wrote:-
> So I think we *should* keep this information linked: grammars
> and grammar descriptions. Perhaps something like the following:
>
> public interface Grammar {
> public XMLGrammarDescription getGrammarDescription();
> }
>
> public interface XMLGrammarDescription
> extends XMLResourceIdentifier {
> public String getGrammarType();
> }
>
> The XMLGrammarPool interface would stay the same.
>I think that it would be simpler in the end to keep the grammar
>description information with the grammar.
> If a grammar doesn't keep a copy of its associated grammar
> description then each grammar pool instance needs to have
> all of the logic to determine if a requested grammar
> description properly identifies a registered grammar.
>
> Does this make sense?
it makes sense :) it is more usable and extensible than a grammar object keeping
information about its type only. I feel it keeps our options open to add more
things that we may find are required to identify (other) grammars in future.
We need constants for different kind of grammars which help validaton
components and grammar pool to identify what kind of grammars they are
interacting. we should shift the two constants defined for each grammar type to
XMLGrammarDescription.
public interface XMLGrammarDescription
extends XMLResourceIdentifier {
public static final String XML_SCHEMA = "XSD";
public static final String XML_DTD = "DTD";
public String getGrammarType();
}
> > 3. It should encompass both XML Schemas and DTD's;
>
> And more...
>
> > 4. It should permit grammars to be preparsed or cached as they are
> > encountered while validating instance documents;
> > 5. It should permit the application to "lock" the cache, that is,
> > prevent any more grammars from being added.
>
> And we need to be able to allow a DTD grammar to a) be
> used in the case where the document contains no DOCTYPE
> line.
I am of the opinion that we should keep these things away from this
configuration. I see this configuration as responsible for caching and making
the grammar available to parser before hand, though it can always be extended
if required.
Moreover, i think this is a feature which is not limited to this
configuration and we should provide this by some other means something like
external-schema-location we have for schema grammar.
> b) override the grammar specified in the DOCTYPE declaration.
If grammar with the same root element is already available to the parser, as a
part of initial grammar set provided by the application before validation
begins. Will parser still ask application for the grammar ? IMO, it should not.
I consider this as something which application knowingly and intentionally
telling to the parser to validate instances with. If its not available with the
parser then it should give chance to application to provide it from its cache.
But i think it definitely requires more thought. I feel same would hold true for
schema ???
I think many applications would like to preparse all the grammars and
provide it as as initial set to the parser before parsing begins. Applications
would like to provide their own implementation by setting the grammar pool
property. We can make it easy for the application by introducing a method in
XMLGrammarPoolImpl, making it more reusable, which allows set of grammars to be
incorporated in its data structures thus making it available to the parser as
part of initial grammar set.
Regards,
Neeraj B.
Sun Microsystems, inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
