Well, my point was - do we really need this feature ? If nobody is really using it - it doesn't work out of box and we didn't see any major complaint except Bob - it may be simpler to just remove the flag from the docs and server.xml - and maybe even remove the code that does this validation. Or move it to some module that is not distributed by default, in case we have 2-3 users.
I believe we no longer include the xerces parser in some of the distros - so even a fix in xerces will be useless, users will need to upgrade the VM. It is silly to depend on a very specific parser and version - and keep options, code, documentation - for a feature that nobody really uses. Costin On 11/4/05, Jeanfrancois Arcand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Costin Manolache wrote: > > I wonder what Bob does when his Windows XP is crashing or catches a virus > > :-) > > Well, at least whoever reads the user mail at MSFT is paid for reading > > his rants, we're not. And they got his money too. > > > > As for the 'validate' flag - maybe we should just remove it: > > - it slows down startup > > - it is optional in the spec > > - we know it doesn't work with most parsers, including versions bundled in > > JDK > > - the whole schema validation thing is a bad idea anyway. > > > > Is anyone really using this flag ? > > I think the problem right now is a bug in the web-xml schema: > > http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31125 > > I should have added that link to the response :-) Once this is fixed, > XML validation should works. > > -- Jeanfrancois > > > > > Bob, if you're still on the list - why would you want to turn on this > > flag ? I never found any use for it ( except to slow down startup and > > get exceptions ). > > > > Costin > > > > > > On 11/4/05, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Bob Bronson wrote: > >> > >>>Another lazy copout!! Even the web.xml that is distributed w/Tomcat does > >>>not validate! Did you even test this before you replied to my note or > >>>did you just assume the user was at fault??? > >>> > >>>When someone criticizes the poor state of an open sores project (as I am > >>>doing now), the typical response from the open sores programmer is to > >>>shift responsibility to the user -- the user is often told to dig > >>>through the change logs or browse the forum archives or even to fix the > >>>bug/documentation themselves instead of "complaining". What an > >>>unprofessional, lazy attitude from programmers! The open sores > >>>programmers try to cast *their* laziness as the user's laziness for "not > >>>digging deeply enough" to resolve their own problem, or even fixing the > >>>problem themselves by going into the source code. The fact that the > >>>Tomcat User mailing list often receives over 150 messages a day is more > >>>a testament to Tomcat's crappy documentation than to its popularity. > >>> > >>>Yes, yes, I know Tomcat is "not for me". You're damned right. I'm happy > >>>to pay money for quality. I guess Tomcat bares out the old adage, "you > >>>get what you pay for". > >> > >>If you don't feel special enough, I can do it in two seconds and can get > >>you a cool membership to the "dev-deny" list :) > >> > >>Rémy > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
