On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:20:20PM -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
On 12/01/2015 12:35 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That messes up
the code, it's confusing to newcomers and
[...]
>>
>> Beyond the few noted spots changes look good to me. Implicit ACK for
>> those not specifically noted.
>>
>
> Thanks a lot, but there is still the security issue and a crash
> mentioned by Luyao. I know how to deal with only a part of it. Anyway,
> this will need another version, so
On 12/01/2015 12:35 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
> them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That messes up
> the code, it's confusing to newcomers and so on.
>
> I once had an idea that we can handle this
On 12/02/2015 01:35 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That messes up
the code, it's confusing to newcomers and so on.
I once had an idea that we can handle this stuff. We
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:46:20PM +0800, lhuang wrote:
On 12/02/2015 01:35 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That messes up
the code, it's confusing to newcomers and so
On 12/02/2015 05:13 PM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:46:20PM +0800, lhuang wrote:
On 12/02/2015 01:35 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That
We always had to deal with new parsing errors in a weird way. All of
them needed to go into functions starting the domains. That messes up
the code, it's confusing to newcomers and so on.
I once had an idea that we can handle this stuff. We know what
failed, we have the XML that failed parsing
