https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
Felix Schumacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #18 from Mark Thomas ---
I don't see why not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #17 from Felix Schumacher ---
I commited it to trunk and to the 9.0.x tree. Should I backport it to 8.5.x,
too?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #16 from Mark Thomas ---
Do you want to commit this change before I tag the next release next week?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #15 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Felix Schumacher from comment #12)
> I didn't find anything about xs:choose. Did you mean xs:choice? (That would
> not work, as it would allow only one of the three elements).
Yes, I me
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #14 from Felix Schumacher ---
Yes, you can use a choice-element, if it is used together with the attributes
minOccurs and maxOccurs, but I fail to see, how it is clearer than using the
all-element.
But as it is clearer for Chris, i
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #13 from Mark Thomas ---
The way the servlet XSD does things is with a nested choice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #12 from Felix Schumacher ---
I didn't find anything about xs:choose. Did you mean xs:choice? (That would not
work, as it would allow only one of the three elements).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee fo
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Remy Maucherat from comment #8)
> Did I miss something, or is a random element order much harder to write in a
> xsd ? The sequence is very easy otoh, but the ordering is fixed.
Nope. F
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
Felix Schumacher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #37246|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #9 from Felix Schumacher ---
OK, so I will try to relax the schema.
Currently a role, that is defined after a user has "defined" a role, will reset
the membership and therefore loose the connection to the user. That has been
fixed
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #8 from Remy Maucherat ---
Did I miss something, or is a random element order much harder to write in a
xsd ? The sequence is very easy otoh, but the ordering is fixed.
I'm ok as well for allowing creativity here, it doesn't hurt.
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas ---
The XSD was added to document the requirements / allow XML aware editors to
produce valid files.
I'm happy with relaxing the restrictions.
With the relaxation in place, we need to think about what duplicate
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Schultz ---
No, I'm okay with both the relaxed behavior and not requiring the XSD
validation. I just want the XSD to reflect what the code is willing to accept.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #5 from Felix Schumacher ---
I think the code should either work without surprises and I was surprised, that
adding a role (even at the wrong place) led to a user without a role, or fail
fast and log a warning.
My preference would
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Schultz ---
I think if we are going to provide an XSD for the file, our code should match
it. Or the other way around. In any case, they should agree. :)
Tomcat does not actually bother to enforce the schema's r
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #3 from mgrigorov ---
Is the XSD actually being used by Tomcat to validate the .xml when parsing ?
I guess it is not, otherwise Felix would have seen an error in the logs
explaining that the order is not correct.
--
You are receiv
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #2 from Felix Schumacher ---
The trigger here was, that we tried to add a role without a XML-aware editor
and placed the role definition behind the user, that also defined the role. The
result of such a misconfiguration is, a user t
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64442
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Schultz ---
What's the desire, here? Making the XML more readable or avoiding redefining
roles or groups?
If you are going to modify the code, you could also modify the XML Schema to
suit (/conf/tomcat-users.xsd
19 matches
Mail list logo
