Menu
▾
▴
xmlunit-general
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-05-27 04:11:54
|
Hi, I've added tests for the input builder sometime last week and learned that SAXSource.sourceToInputSource doesn't work for DOMSource - I haven't tried a STaXSource, yet. No big problem but something to look out for. The API for validation I proposed is in place for both platforms. The class encapsulating errors/warnings is called ValidationProblem (better names are always welcome) and now holds an enum property indicating whether it represents an error or a warning. There is no implementation of that API, yet. I'll start with the JAXP 1.3 implementation and make the legacy jaxp13.Validator class use it. Stefan |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2009-05-27 14:21:46
|
Stefan, I'm wondering if we could also think of possibly dual licensing the code base if there are significant portions being rewritten. There are a couple of projects at Eclipse that would would like to use XMLUnit but unfortunately the current license isn't compatible. Almost anything other than the LGPL or GPL license would work. Of course there still might be pedigree concerns from the Eclipse IP lawyers. I look forward to testing out the new version, and would love to use it on the Eclipse PsychoPath XPath 2.0 project but current licensing keeps me from doing so. Dave Stefan Bodewig wrote: > Hi, > > I've added tests for the input builder sometime last week and learned > that SAXSource.sourceToInputSource doesn't work for DOMSource - I > haven't tried a STaXSource, yet. No big problem but something to look > out for. > > The API for validation I proposed is in place for both platforms. The > class encapsulating errors/warnings is called ValidationProblem > (better names are always welcome) and now holds an enum property > indicating whether it represents an error or a warning. > > There is no implementation of that API, yet. I'll start with the JAXP > 1.3 implementation and make the legacy jaxp13.Validator class use it. > > Stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT > is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet > the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & > iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian > Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-05-27 14:00:21
|
On 2009-05-27, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > I'm wondering if we could also think of possibly dual licensing the > code base if there are significant portions being rewritten. I have already changed the license of the new code to Apache License 2.0. > There are a couple of projects at Eclipse that would would like to > use XMLUnit but unfortunately the current license isn't > compatible. Huh? XMLUnit 1.x is under the Apache License 1.1 which I'd think should be pretty compatible with Eclipse. They didn't have any problems with the license when it was used by the Apache libraries a few years ago. > I look forward to testing out the new version, I'm not moving terribly fast right now. Part of this is that I have only so much time (and Ant and Gump and ...) and part of the reason is that I want to leave room for others to participate 8-) > and would love to use it on the Eclipse PsychoPath XPath 2.0 project > but current licensing keeps me from doing so. Which pieces of XMLUnit would you use? The difference engine, XPath support, anything else? Stefan |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2009-05-27 14:23:05
|
Thanks, for some reason I thought it was under LGPL, maybe that was the 1.0 code. Anyways, Apache 2.0 license will help, but I think the big issue was pedigree concerns with the 1.0 code. However it looks like the 1.2 code base has made it through IP review and is approved for use. Helps if I do some checking before asking. Dave Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2009-05-27, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > > >> I'm wondering if we could also think of possibly dual licensing the >> code base if there are significant portions being rewritten. >> > > I have already changed the license of the new code to Apache > License 2.0. > > >> There are a couple of projects at Eclipse that would would like to >> use XMLUnit but unfortunately the current license isn't >> compatible. >> > > Huh? XMLUnit 1.x is under the Apache License 1.1 which I'd think > should be pretty compatible with Eclipse. They didn't have any > problems with the license when it was used by the Apache libraries a > few years ago. > > >> I look forward to testing out the new version, >> > > I'm not moving terribly fast right now. Part of this is that I have > only so much time (and Ant and Gump and ...) and part of the reason is > that I want to leave room for others to participate 8-) > > >> and would love to use it on the Eclipse PsychoPath XPath 2.0 project >> but current licensing keeps me from doing so. >> > > Which pieces of XMLUnit would you use? The difference engine, XPath > support, anything else? > > Stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT > is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet > the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & > iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian > Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-05-27 14:37:50
|
On 2009-05-27, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > Thanks, for some reason I thought it was under LGPL, maybe that was > the 1.0 code. I haven't been around before 1.1, but I'm pretty sure all code has always been Apache licensed. The first revision of the license file (Apache 1.1) in svn is revision 38 and the comment says "0.6 release". Anyway. > Anyways, Apache 2.0 license will help, but I think the big issue was > pedigree concerns with the 1.0 code. However it looks like the 1.2 > code base has made it through IP review and is approved for > use. Great. Enjoy using XMLUnit and and finding bugs 8-) Stefan |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-05-29 03:49:57
|
On 2009-05-27, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> wrote: > There is no implementation of that API, yet. I'll start with the JAXP > 1.3 implementation and make the legacy jaxp13.Validator class use it. Done. Stefan |
|
From: Maxim F. <tpa...@gm...> - 2009-06-06 16:23:00
|
Hi Stefan. I'm looking at the .net version of Validator class now and it's quite strange for me that this class contains implementation of validation while java version is only abstract class without knowledge of any validation API. Why you decide to split them like this ? If it's error i can fix it by splitting implementation with default microsoft parser to separate class that extends Validator. 2009/5/27 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> > Hi, > > I've added tests for the input builder sometime last week and learned > that SAXSource.sourceToInputSource doesn't work for DOMSource - I > haven't tried a STaXSource, yet. No big problem but something to look > out for. > > The API for validation I proposed is in place for both platforms. The > class encapsulating errors/warnings is called ValidationProblem > (better names are always welcome) and now holds an enum property > indicating whether it represents an error or a warning. > > There is no implementation of that API, yet. I'll start with the JAXP > 1.3 implementation and make the legacy jaxp13.Validator class use it. > > Stefan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT > is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. > Meet > the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & > iPhoneDevCamp as they present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian > Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://p.sf.net/sfu/creativitycat-com > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-06-08 11:06:30
|
On 2009-06-06, Maxim Filimonov <tpa...@gm...> wrote: > I'm looking at the .net version of Validator class now great > and it's quite strange for me that this class contains > implementation of validation while java version is only abstract > class without knowledge of any validation API. In the Java case I knew there'd be (at least) two implementations, while I only expected a single implementation for .NET. Do you envision a different validation API (I may just not be aware of alternatives so please bear with me) for .NET as well? If there is more than one implementation for .NET then we can and should split Validator the same way we did for Java, otherwise I'd feel it would be speculative design and defer the decision to later (YAGNI). If we leave Validator as it is it may be a good idea to remove the public constructor, though. That way people would be forced to use the factory method and we'd be free to change the implementation later. If you feel my code is wrong, please don't hesitate to jump in and fix it 8-) Stefan |
|
From: Maxim F. <tpa...@gm...> - 2009-06-08 13:03:14
|
Hi Stefan.I'm thinking more about xslt processors there a couple of them, but for validation huh. Think that you are right about only one way for .net. Ok can you give me you next planned steps to be clear what i can start to implement? 2009/6/8 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@ap...> > On 2009-06-06, Maxim Filimonov <tpa...@gm...> wrote: > > > I'm looking at the .net version of Validator class now > > great > > > and it's quite strange for me that this class contains > > implementation of validation while java version is only abstract > > class without knowledge of any validation API. > > In the Java case I knew there'd be (at least) two implementations, > while I only expected a single implementation for .NET. Do you > envision a different validation API (I may just not be aware of > alternatives so please bear with me) for .NET as well? > > If there is more than one implementation for .NET then we can and > should split Validator the same way we did for Java, otherwise I'd > feel it would be speculative design and defer the decision to later > (YAGNI). > > If we leave Validator as it is it may be a good idea to remove the > public constructor, though. That way people would be forced to use > the factory method and we'd be free to change the implementation > later. > > If you feel my code is wrong, please don't hesitate to jump in and fix > it 8-) > > Stefan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises > looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest > innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and > enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization. > Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-06-09 10:54:36
|
On 2009-06-08, Maxim Filimonov <tpa...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Stefan.I'm thinking more about xslt processors there a couple of them, > but for validation huh. Currently I don't plan to do more WRT XSLT than providing the inut builder method that applies a transformation to a different source. > Ok can you give me you next planned steps to be clear what i can > start to implement? API-wise I'd probably look at XPath next since the difference engine is a complex beast and I'd like to feel my way around it first. >From the implementation POV validation isn't really done, yet. The "old" XMLUnit validation code can do a few tricks we don't support in XMLUnit2 for now: * user specified resolvers for entities and/or URIs. This is important IMHO, we need to figure out a nice API for it, though. A setter or two might be enough, not sure. * validation against a DTD for documents with no DOCTYPE declaration at all or even against a different DTD than the one of the DOCTYPE. Not sure how many people use the feature, but I'd like to at least keep the DOCTYPE-less use-case. * tests * some minor API details like the type of exception we want to throw if the user uses validateSchema on a DTD (we don't know how to do that). Stefan |
|
From: David C. <dc...@st...> - 2009-06-08 14:02:02
|
SAXON also runs on .NET and if you have the pay version, you get XML Schema Validation as well. So yes, there are alternatives besides just the Microsoft parser and validator. Dave Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 2009-06-06, Maxim Filimonov <tpa...@gm...> wrote: > > >> I'm looking at the .net version of Validator class now >> > > great > > >> and it's quite strange for me that this class contains >> implementation of validation while java version is only abstract >> class without knowledge of any validation API. >> > > In the Java case I knew there'd be (at least) two implementations, > while I only expected a single implementation for .NET. Do you > envision a different validation API (I may just not be aware of > alternatives so please bear with me) for .NET as well? > > If there is more than one implementation for .NET then we can and > should split Validator the same way we did for Java, otherwise I'd > feel it would be speculative design and defer the decision to later > (YAGNI). > > If we leave Validator as it is it may be a good idea to remove the > public constructor, though. That way people would be forced to use > the factory method and we'd be free to change the implementation > later. > > If you feel my code is wrong, please don't hesitate to jump in and fix > it 8-) > > Stefan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises > looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest > innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and > enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization. > Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get > _______________________________________________ > Xmlunit-general mailing list > Xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlunit-general > > |
|
From: Stefan B. <bo...@ap...> - 2009-06-09 10:46:47
|
On 2009-06-08, David Carver <dc...@st...> wrote: > SAXON also runs on .NET and if you have the pay version, you get XML > Schema Validation as well. So yes, there are alternatives besides just > the Microsoft parser and validator. Understood. But until anybody writes a validtor implementation using SAXON.NET we only have a single implementation and don't need to artifically split the current class into two with one being abstract and the other being the only subclass. Stefan |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X