Hi Andy, There's no way to tell which parts of a SchemaGrammar came from which schema documents. If the schemas you're loading are consistent what you could do is merge the components for a given target namespace into a single SchemaGrammar object and eliminate (or replace) references to the other ones. The XSLoader [1] (see the XSGrammarMerger inner class) will merge together SchemaGrammar objects from the same namespace into one. Might give you some ideas if you are interested in attempting this yourself (on a larger scale).
Thanks. [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xerces/java/trunk/src/org/apache/xerces/impl/xs/XSLoaderImpl.java?revision=449487&view=markup Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Andy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/16/2007 01:03:44 AM: > Thank you for your response. > > Would it be possible to remove the grammar parts associated with an > included schema? This would probably require an intelligent grammarpool > implementation that partitions definitions in the grammar for partial > schemas defined within the same Grammar by targetNamespace. > > -Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:28 PM > To: j-users@xerces.apache.org > Cc: Andy Harris > Subject: RE: grammar pool population > > Hi Andy, > > Each SchemaGrammar is a container for all the schema components of a > given > target namespace. Includes have no representation in the model (though > you > can query [1] the grammar for the list of document URIs which > contributed > to it). All of the schema components constructed from the includes will > be > stored in the same grammar object. > > Thanks. > > [1] > http://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/javadocs/xs/org/apache/xerces/xs/XSNa > mespaceItem.html#getDocumentLocations() > > Michael Glavassevich > XML Parser Development > IBM Toronto Lab > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Andy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/12/2007 12:04:51 > AM: > > > 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] > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
