Hi,

A while back one of our team members posted a xerces bug to do with
namespace declarations (see
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5382). Essentially, an xml
file containing more than a certain number of namespaces cannot be properly
parsed by Xerces. 

The bug was traced to the DeferredDocumentImpl class, lines 1092-1114 or
thereabouts, to the getNodeUri method. As you can see, the method returns a
short,even though it purports to return an int. This value overflows when
given enough name spaces, and corrupts the parse.

No work appears to have been done on the bug. From its inception in 1.2.0, I
see that it is still present in 1.4.4., although obviously not in Xerces 2.
Is there any way that this bug fix could be patched into one of the future
1.4- releases? This is a critical issue as we work with very large xml
documents.

Apologies if this is not the appropriate user group.



    /** Returns the URI of the given node. */
    public short getNodeURI(int nodeIndex) {
        return getNodeURI(nodeIndex, true);
    }

    /** 
     * Returns the URI of the given node. 
     * @param True to free URI index.
     */
    public short getNodeURI(int nodeIndex, boolean free) {

        if (nodeIndex == -1) {
            return -1;
        }

        int chunk = nodeIndex >> CHUNK_SHIFT;
        int index = nodeIndex & CHUNK_MASK;
        if (free) {
            return (short)clearChunkIndex(fNodeURI, chunk, index);
        }
        return (short)getChunkIndex(fNodeURI, chunk, index);

    } // getNodeURI(int):int


*******************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email
 is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the
 named addressee.  Access, copying or re-use of the
 information in it by any other person is not authorised.

********************************************************************

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

Reply via email to