Hi,

2016-04-26 22:49 GMT+03:00 Hilbert, Colin <colin.hilb...@teradata.com>:
>
> Tomcat version 7.0.69
> Also happens on 7.0.68 and 7.0.67
>
> I don’t get this error on 7.0.65
>
> I have deployed an idp.war on tomcat
> The idp.war has a service.xml file that looks like this at the beginning:
>
>
> <srv:Services xmlns:srv="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:services"
>           xmlns:attribute-afp="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:afp"
>
xmlns:attribute-authority="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:attribute:authority"
>           xmlns:attribute-resolver="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:resolver"
>           xmlns:profile="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:idp:profile-handler"
>           xmlns:relyingParty="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:relying-party"
>           xmlns:resource="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:resource"
>           xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
>           xsi:schemaLocation="urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:services
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-services.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:afp
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-afp.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:attribute:authority
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-attribute-authority.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:resolver
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-attribute-resolver.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:idp:profile-handler
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-idp-profile-handler.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:relying-party
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-relying-party.xsd
>                               urn:mace:shibboleth:2.0:resource
classpath:/schema/shibboleth-2.0-resource.xsd”>
>
> The stack complains that it cannot find the first schemaLocation listed
but if I go to the deployed idp folder in tomcat idp/WEB-INF/lib/ there are
jars there, one of which is shibboleth-common-1.2.1.jar
>
> Which has the path /schema/ containing all those listed schemaLocations
from the service.xml
>
> I can move all the jars from idp/WE-INF/lib/ to tomcat7.0.69/lib/ and the
exception goes away but I haven’t had to do this prior to .67
>
> Can anyone shed some light on this?


I think that this is related to the following feature [1].
I'll check that.

Regards,
Violeta

[1] https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56777

Reply via email to