Are we actually using the spring.schemas files?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 1/31/14, 7:54 PM, "Brent Putman" <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

>That's troubling/surprising.

I could just be missing something, but my next step was going to be to
trace things more closely and find out what code actually does anything
with that file in Spring.

What I'm particularly wondering is if I'm wrong about the DocumentLoader
thing. I don't see any comparable code in V3 to what's in V2, and that was
the code that was "reconciling" the incorrect usage of the schema mappings
so that it worked. So I was expecting the normal Spring behavior if I
pointed it to a location that wasn't a classpath resource.

> If I remove the spring.schemas file, or comment out its contents, then
>the context init fails with a schema lookup error as expected.

Ok, then probably I'm just doing something wrong to test this.

>Can you point me at exactly what you're testing?  I don't actually see
>any tests with Spring config files, etc in for example
>idp-attribute-resolver-*, so I'm probably looking in the wrong place.  I
>was just wondering exactly what we're doing now in v3 as far as all the
>Spring custom parsing stuff.

All the code and tests are in idp-attribute-resolver-spring, and I just
changed the test file in the data directory in that module, the
attribute-resolver.xml file. Then I started playing with the files in
META-INF in the module.

>I haven't been tracking this stuff in v3. Are we still using some of
>Chad's Spring helper code from v2?  If so, perhaps the problem lies
>therein, in that it is somewhere inconsistent with how one is supposed to
>do things (as opposed to how v2 did it).

Right. I don't *think* we're still using that portion of the code, or at
least I didn't spot it. But I didn't spend much time yet looking for it. I
also didn't see any sign of it on the stack in the exceptions and logs.

>And of course if you can overcome your pathological aversion to
>schemaLocation. ;-)

I can't, but there's not much to be done. Spring is literally hardwired to
assume it, which is a major bug, but I don't think it's a good use of our
time to fix it unless we were actually engaging them on it.

-- Scott