DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5773>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5773

WebXmlReader keeps warnings to itself

           Summary: WebXmlReader keeps warnings to itself
           Product: Tomcat 3
           Version: 3.3 Final
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Other
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Normal
          Priority: Other
         Component: Config
        AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Hi All,

Some people I work with noticed that Tomcat was spitting out a web.xml 
validation error for their app, but only the first time they started up.  This 
gave them the impression that everything was ok the second time.

Well, I looked around a bit and found that WebXmlReader writes out a "validation 
mark" (webxmlval.txt) in the work directory.  The timestamp of the validation 
mark is used as part of deciding whether to validate.  The thing is, this mark 
is written out even if web.xml was not valid so next time through validation is 
skipped.

I'm not sure if this was done on purpose and I can even imagine an argument 
about not nagging more than once.  Still, in our case the disappearance of the 
validation errors brought about false confidence.

In case this seems like a problem to anyone else, here's a patch that only 
writes out the validation mark if the XML parsed without errors.  That way you 
keep seeing the validation errors until you a) disable validation or b) fix the 
offending xml.

Interestingly, this patch takes advantage of an unused boolean field in the 
error handler.  Makes me wonder if somebody already thought of this but decided 
not to deal with it.  Perhaps there was a good reason.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to