(3) seems like a good direction. Probably safer to wait until 1.1 is out, so +1 to fixing this in 1.2
--jason On 5/31/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that we have a schema for config.xml it's become more painfully obvious that we are putting mixed content into the attribute elements of config.xml. You can override an xml-attribute in a gbean such as the <defaultEnvironment> elements in the builders by putting the override xml right into an attribute element in config.xml. This works great and we use it in the tck setup. The schema validation we now seem to be doing is emitting warnings like: Booting Geronimo Kernel (in Java 1.4.2_09)... Warning: validation was turned on but an org.xml.sax.ErrorHandler was not set, which is probably not what is desired. Parser will use a default ErrorHandler to print the first 10 errors. Please call the 'setErrorHandler' method to fix this. Error: URI=null Line=105: cvc-complex-type.2.2: Element 'attribute' must have no element [children], and the value must be valid. Error: URI=null Line=125: cvc-complex-type.2.2: Element 'attribute' must have no element [children], and the value must be valid. Error: URI=null Line=149: cvc-complex-type.2.2: Element 'attribute' must have no element [children], and the value must be valid. Error: URI=null Line=179: cvc-complex-type.2.2: Element 'attribute' must have no element [children], and the value must be valid. Error: URI=null Line=207: cvc-complex-type.2.2: Element 'attribute' must have no element [children], and the value must be valid. so... what to do?? 1. ignore these messages, after all it works 2. Try to modify the attributes-1.1 schema to allow mixed content. Today anyway this is beyond my schema-fu. In any case mixed content is pretty evil, we should try to avoid it if possible. 3. Introduce an xml-attribute element in config.xml. This is going to require bigger changes in the object model holding the values: we'll need either a new element or a flag to tell it to write out <xml-attribute...> rather than <attribute...> (3) is probably the most plausible way to go, but I'm not enthusiastic about cramming this into 1.1. I think (1) for 1.1 followed by more thought and perhaps (3) for 1.2 is the way to go. Thoughts? thanks david jencks
