This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 26841 - Support URLResolvers and SchemaResolvers
Summary: Support URLResolvers and SchemaResolvers
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: xml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Catalog (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: PC Windows ME/2000
: P1 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@xml
Keywords: API
Depends on: 27930
Blocks: 26477 26878
  Show dependency tree
Reported: 2002-08-28 10:47 UTC by Milan Kuchtiak
Modified: 2008-12-05 16:52 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: TASK
Exception Reporter:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Milan Kuchtiak 2002-08-28 10:47:45 UTC
In order to provide fast validation of XML files, defined 
by XML Schema, it is desirable to redirect external System 
Identifiers to local URIs using module's layers. 

For validation - it is rasonable for parsers to evoid 
looking for schema files through the modem or proxy.

One of the most importand change in J2EE 1.4 specification 
is converting deployment descriptor files towards the XML 

Dublin release is expected to support the J2EE 1.4 
Comment 1 _ pkuzel 2002-08-28 11:28:50 UTC
It depends o JSR-63. Otherwise we need to be parser specifics.
Comment 2 _ pkuzel 2002-08-29 14:11:14 UTC
We should upgrade to new Apache's xml-commons resolver library that
supports URIResolvers. At the same time we need to extend
...xml.catalog.api specification by mentioning that CatalogReader may
optionally implement URIResolver.

URIResolvers may be used for XML Schema resolution mechanism. Actualy
it depends on mentioned JSR-63.
Comment 3 _ pkuzel 2003-09-03 11:10:25 UTC
Unscheduling from my todo list. New owner is gladly welcome. Meanwhile assigning
to abstract owner.
Comment 4 Jindrich Sedek 2007-01-18 15:26:27 UTC
This issue should have priority P1 since it blocks issue #26477 of P1 priority
Comment 5 Samaresh Panda 2008-12-05 16:52:18 UTC
Milan, is it still a valid use-case? If no, please mark it as INVALID. If yes, can you explain the requirement in
details and give me some examples.