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=26028>.
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=26028

setEntityResolver doesn't set resolver in Entity Manager

[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |



------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2004-01-09 21:29 -------
I tried creating just a reader and serializer:
That works fine when the entity resolver is set in the reader.

Then I tried parsing again using that exact same reader object in a tiny 2 item 
chain:

reader -- filter   

I then set the entity resolver on the reader (and filter).
When the reader parse() gets called, it doesn't respect the entity resolver.

I wonder, now that I have read a little more about the xerces internal 
architecture, if
the setEntityResolver is set for the reader until the chain starts up...then, 
one of
the first things that happens is the parser resets to default and the 
configuration is read in...since
I don't have a parser configuration, I get the default...without a resolver.  
For some reason, 
the parser doesn't act this way when not using a filter chain.

I would love to create the reader with custom parser configuration
 to confirm this theory, but I need to learn more on how to do this.

I don't think the problem is the propagation of the entity resolver back to the 
reader, because
I have used the setEntityResolver() method on everything in the chain including 
the reader, and
the resolver never gets called at parse time.

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

Reply via email to