Hi ,
I was wondering if Xerces will convert a 'uri' like : file:c:\test\test.xml
to a 'real' uri file:c:/test/test.xml with this file-path-to-url algorithm
?
So that should mean that following code is OK:
InputSource xmlsource = null ;
(...)
// Set xml system-id
if (xmlsystemid != null)
xmlsource.setSystemId(xmlsystemid);
(...)
with xmlsystemid being a String: file:c:\test\test.xml ?
Regards,
Stefan
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: file-path-to-uri algorithm in JAXP code
> > And I found that current code doesn't escape '{' correctly.
>
> Hi Neeraj. Thx for pointing that out. You are absolutely right. I'll fix
> it.
>
> In the code the character '"' appeared twice, while one of them was
> intended for '{'. :-(
>
> Cheers,
> Sandy Gao
> Software Developer, IBM Canada
> (1-905) 413-3255
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> Neeraj Bajaj
> <Neeraj.Bajaj@Sun To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .COM> cc:
> Subject: Re:
file-path-to-uri algorithm in JAXP code
> 11/08/2002 10:31
> AM
> Please respond to
> xerces-j-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> > Good to see you're back with us. Hope you enjoyed your long weekend
(and
> > now I'm curious: what does Diwali celebrate? Sorry for the ignorance.
> :)
> > )
>
> Diwali is the biggest festival here in India. Its also called festival of
> lights. It would take me lot of time to write, what does Diwali celebrate
> and
> why do we celebrate ? So, I would go for shortcut. Look at the link
below..
>
> http://www.bawarchi.com/festivals/diwali1.html.
> Just do 'diwali' search on Google and you will find lot of information :-)
>
> > To the matter at hand: one thing's for sure: I don't think we can let
> > 2.2.1 come out before this is resolved. I know Xalan wants to get back
> > into sync with our JAXP code, so it's pretty important we get our house
> > back in order (see the recent discussions on general@ for further
> > evidence).
>
> Right. The actual plan was to put this code in xml-commons after it
> sucessfully
> works for some time in Xerces2.
>
> > I don't think there's been any bugs reported against the code you
dropped
> > in for 2.2.0. But Sandy switched us over to his contribution shortly
> after
> > 2.2.0, and I don't think we've seen any bugs in that direction either.
> So,
> > it's probably reasonable to assume the correctness is about equal;
that's
> > why I'm leaning towards just sticking with the way we have things at
this
> > moment (i.e., use Sandy's code).
>
> I am fine with anything that works correctly. I am not sure how many
people
> use
> the nightly bulids and then JAXP/File combination. I didn't look at the
> current
> codes approach (I planned to keep this thing for weekend) but i did ran
> some
> tests now that i used while fixing this problem earlier. And I found that
> current code doesn't escape '{' correctly. So, I think it needs to be
> fixed.
> This is required by RFC 2396. See section 2.4.3. Excluded US-ASCII
> Characters
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
>
> I don't object to the present code and also it has additional
> support
> for handling non-ASCII characters but just want that doesn't break and
have
>
> anything less than what we had in Xerces2.2.0
>
> > Anyway, what do you think about Monday as a 2.2.1 release date?
>
> When you decide to put stop for any fixes, let me know. I will run test
> cases at
> my end and communicate to you. We can take advantage of time zone
> difference, I
> can do it Monday morning and let you know.
>
>
> Neeraj
>
>
> >
> > |---------+---------------------------->
> > | | Neeraj Bajaj |
> > | | <Neeraj.Bajaj@Sun|
> > | | .COM> |
> > | | |
> > | | 11/07/2002 09:04 |
> > | | AM |
> > | | Please respond to|
> > | | xerces-j-dev |
> > | | |
> > |---------+---------------------------->
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------|
> > |
>
> |
> > | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> |
> > | cc:
>
> |
> > | Subject: Re: file-path-to-uri algorithm in JAXP code
>
> |
> > |
>
> |
> > |
>
> |
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Sandy,
> >
> > Sorry for late response on this. It was a long weekend here
> in
> > India on
> > occasion of Diwali.
> >
> > > One thing was missing from Neeraj's fix: it doesn't support non-ASCII
> > > characters. This is why I committed another fix for the same problem,
> > using
> > > a different approach (borrowed from other parts of Xerces), with the
> > > support of non-ASCII characters.
> > >
> > > As we all know, JAXP is not our (Xerces') code, so it's better if it
> > lives
> > > in a common place (xml-commons would be a good candidate) so that
other
> > > projects can have access to this fix. Before moving on, we'll need to
> > pick
> > > one of the two solutions.
> > >
> > > I don't know which one is more appropriate, so I would like to ask for
> > your
> > > opinions (especially Neeraj's) on:
> > > 1. How long and how much effort does it take to update Neeraj's
> approach
> > to
> > > support non-ASCII characters?
> >
> > Right, As of now it doesn't handle non-ascii character. Since Xerces2.2
> > release
> > was due, and there were lots of bugs filed in bugzilla for this problem.
> My
> > take
> > on this was that it should be fixed before the release, and fixing for
> > ASCII
> > characters serves the need for most of the people. I didn't have time to
> > upgrade
> > it to handle non-ascii character. I would have a look into it and find
> out
> > how
> > much effort it is. Would it be fine for you, if i get back on this after
> > 2-3
> > days, say by Friday or Monday ?
> >
> > > 2. In terms of correctness and completeness, in which approach do
> people
> > > feel more confident?
> >
> > I haven't had a look at your code, so I am not sure which one is better
:
> -)
> > I am
> > really not too concerned about performance in this case since its just
> one
> > time
> > operation, my take on this it should work correctly and handle all the
> > cases.
> > I tested my code before commiting it in cvs. I think it has fixed many
> bugs
> > as
> > seen from the user responses. Is there any bug filed for the similar
> > problem
> > after the fix was put in cvs ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Neeraj
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> -- Neeraj
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
