Hi Aki, It seems a shame to have to disable all datatype validation in order to use property placeholders, but given we already have a mechanism to disable all validation, this does not seem unreasonable. Is the problem only happening with the namespace handlers? Personally, I think it would be better to address the validation problem, rather than lose validation altogether.
FWIW, property placeholder support never made it into the final spec, and I think any spec work is likely to go the route of a separate attribute which would avoid this problem. Regards, Graham. On 7 December 2012 11:04, Aki Yoshida <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I posted this question a month ago, but haven't heard any comments. > > Could some comment on this? > > Thanks. > Regards, aki > > 2012/11/8 Aki Yoshida <[email protected]>: > > Currently, you can only disable the entire schema validation by > > setting directive blueprint.aries.xml-validation to false. > > > > I would like to have an option for only disabling the datatype > > validation while keeping the structures validation. This may sound > > strange, so I would like to explain the reason. > > > > Many namespace handler XML schemas are using some datatypes that > > constrain their syntactic representation (e.g., int, boolean, enum, > > etc). For those values, the valid syntactic representation must be > > available during validation. That means, you can't use the ${...} > > placeholders for those values. And I find it inconvenient. > > > > The options could be: > > 1. do not allow placeholders for those values > > 2. change the schemas to use only non-syntactic datatypes like xsd:string > > 3. change the datatypes to a union of the placeholder looking string > > and the original type > > 4. use the current xml-validation directive to disable the whole > validation > > 5. provide an option to only disable datatype validation (that means > > ignoring datatype validation errors during validation) > > > > I prefer option 5 and the others are in the order of 4 > 2 > 1 > 3. > > > > Let me know how you think. > > > > If we go for option 5, we can modify a minor change in > > BlueprintContainerImpl to read another directive > > (blueprint.aries.xml-validation-datatypes) and pass this flag to the > > Parser's validate method so that it can either ignore datatype > > validation errors or not. > > > > Thanks. > > > > aki >
