[jdom-interest] [Patch] Bug regarding attributes local name using JDOMResult

Jason Hunter jhunter at xquery.com
Mon Nov 21 12:02:15 PST 2005

Mattias Jiderhamn wrote:

> Actually, I haven't since I reasoned this wasn't necessary.

Logical proof a bug can't happen is great, but I still like to perform 
actual testing.  :)  I've just seen too many bugs that couldn't possibly 
happen but yet do.

> The only case when the current code would produce the expected output 
> while the patched code would not, is if attQName contains both prefix 
> and name while attLocalName is the empty string. I figured that if such 
> a parser exists, it is erroneous and it shouldn't be JDOMs 
> responsibility to handle this. But maybe I'm wrong here?
> If I'm wrong, is there a particular set of parser that should be tested 
> ("the parsers")?

I'd suggest testing under your Resin 2 and Resin 3 environments where 
you found the bug, to make absolutely sure the fix for 3 doesn't hurt 2. 
What parser/transformer is Resin 3 using that behaves differently?


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list