Hi Senaka,

I updated the documentation of getXMLStreamReader to make it clear
what are the assumptions that the caller can make about the returned
reader and I added a link from OMXMLStreamReaderValidator to that
documentation. See [1].

Andreas

[1] http://people.apache.org/~veithen/axiom/apidocs/

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:42, Senaka Fernando<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Yes, this is what made me more inquisitive about whether it was Axiom or
> Axis2 that needed some fixing. I was unaware that this was fixed a few weeks
> ago. Many thanks.
>
> Also, don't you think that it would be better if we could document what this
> class does, or when we return an object of this type (I prefer this option),
> at API level that such would be created/returned if log4j DEBUG is enabled?
> So, that someone running into a similar issue in the future would perhaps
> understand what caused this. There could at least be some instances where
> people use older versions of Axis2 with newer versions of Axiom. WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Senaka
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Andreas Veithen <[email protected]
>> wrote:
>
>> Senaka,
>>
>> The purpose of OMXMLStreamReaderValidator is to validate that the
>> sequence of events produced by OMStAXWrapper is correct. Note that
>> code using OMElement#getXMLStreamReader should not make any
>> assumptions about the implementation class returned by that method.
>> There is actually no valid reason (at least with the recent XOP/MTOM
>> fixes in Axiom) to cast the returned reader into an OMStAXWrapper.
>> AXIS2-4363 gives some more insight into this question.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 20:23, Senaka Fernando<[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Why do we return OMXMLStreamReaderValidator inside OMElementImpl when
>> > log4j's DEBUG level is enabled and OMStAXWrapper if not? It also happens
>> to
>> > be that OMXMLStreamReaderValidator is not a OMStAXWrapper which makes
>> some
>> > code that work when log4j's DEBUG level is disabled not to work when
>> log4j's
>> > DEBUG level enabled.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Senaka
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to