Andy writes:
>Did we really do that in the implementation? or was
>this just a mismatch between the documentation and the
>impl?
Well, the code seems to be trying to do so:
protected void setValidation(boolean flag)
{
fValidation = flag;
fValidationEnabledByDynamic = false;
if (fValidation) {
if (fDynamicDisabledByValidation) {
fDynamicValidation = true;
fDynamicDisabledByValidation = false;
}
} else if (fDynamicValidation) {
fDynamicValidation = false;
fDynamicDisabledByValidation = true;
}
setValidating(fValidation);
}
protected void setDynamicValidation(boolean flag)
{
fDynamicValidation = flag;
fDynamicDisabledByValidation = false;
if (!fDynamicValidation) {
if (fValidationEnabledByDynamic) {
fValidation = false;
fValidationEnabledByDynamic = false;
}
} else if (!fValidation) {
fValidation = true;
fValidationEnabledByDynamic = true;
}
setValidating(fValidation);
}
>I honestly don't remember but I have never been
>in favor of implicit behaviors. Or if I was, I'm
>feeling much better now... ;)
I believe that the original issues related to dynamic
validation being set and people wondering why nothing
happened. When we told them that they also needed to
set the validation feature they said that was dumb.
Of course, when they later turned off validation they
asked why we still were validating and we said that
they still had dynamic validation set, and again we
were told that was dumb. It seemed that everyone
wants to have their cake and eat it too, and perhaps
we were too accomodating, but that was the behavior
in Xerces 1.
-Glenn
