Thanks for your response. How are includes represented in the grammar pool? It would seem that included schemas - which all have the same targetNamespace - would trigger these warnings.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:16 PM To: j-users@xerces.apache.org Cc: Andy Harris Subject: Re: grammar pool population Hi Andy, You're right. This warning is generated when a grammar pool returns multiple grammar objects for the same target namespace. Note that this includes imports (each SchemaGrammar has a list of them which the schema validator's grammar bucket [1] extracts), so if you loaded several grammars independently with different grammar pools and they had imports for the same namespace you might run into this. If these grammar objects are truly equal I suppose you could resolve the conflict by replacing the duplicates with a unique instance or avoid the issue altogether by using a single grammar pool for all of the schemas. Thanks. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xerces/java/trunk/src/org/apache/xerces/imp l/xs/XSGrammarBucket.java?revision=446734&view=markup Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Andy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/11/2007 08:49:17 PM: > Hello- > For performance reasons, I?m caching grammars for validation of an > instance against a set of connected and disconnected schemas of an > XBRL taxonomy. Schemas can be disconnected when discovered via > linkbases. The only way I can get this working is to re-generate > grammar every time, letting Xerces construct the pool before > validating the instance. This is very expensive to let xerces parse > grammar more then once. > Searching the xerces-2 grammar FAQ and other mailing lists on the > internet has suggestions on how to "actively" construct grammar > pools (caching grammars), but I still get the following warning(s): > Warning: > One of the grammar(s) returned from the user's grammar pool is in > conflict with another grammar. > Here is my integration code for building a grammar pool from 2 or > more root schemas: > while (schemas.hasNext()) { > IDTSNode schemaNode = (IDTSNode) schemas.next(); > XMLGrammarPoolImpl gp = (XMLGrammarPoolImpl)schemaNode. > getGrammarPool(); > Grammar[] g = gp.retrieveInitialGrammarSet("http://www. > w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"); > grammarPool.cacheGrammars("http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";, g); > } > A root schema does not have any referencing schemas and the set of > schemas are reverse topologically sorted. Inspection of the graph of > grammars within grammarPool reveals that they are the same as when > Xerces populates the grammar pool. Is this the correct way to cache > grammars into the grammar pool? > If there is only 1 root schema, there is no additional ?merging? of > grammars and the grammar pool from the single root schema can be > used directly to validate an instance. > A grammar pool is set on a configuration instance as a feature and > passed to the constructor of DOMParser: > DOMParser parser = new DOMParser(config); > The grammarPool is locked before parsing and unlocked after parsing > to prevent further entity resolution. In addition to XML schema > validation, my application caches Grammars for PSVI analysis and XML > prototyping. > Analysis of the grammarPool source code indicates that a warning is > generated because there must be two instances of Grammar with the > same target namespace. However, I don?t see this when looking > through the grammarPool instance. My next step is to step through > the Xerces-2 sources under my application, but was hoping somebody > could indicate improper usage on my part. > thanks, > -Andy ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
