Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.186 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=UlQQdooSbMP96jj8O0G5AEVGnDp8WGsMrynRcZi/bWQD3ZpR01yfJqV4zwCgsCHCQNa6loVlcbi5Dg+zv1lykDH/KQyytgaSStWD+k52vWnt3rlcq+RdWYSaiPm27PrPrxq42teexkGijlJnqVZ/hXM6Byx0VK+fN3tvXKAV8Ss=
Message-ID: <90a8d1c00709170219q5f8cfd38h15206379228c4d3f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:19:33 +0200
From: "Stefan Guggisberg" <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com>
To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Subject: Re: Validation in QName class
In-Reply-To: <90a8d1c00709170218t3e33d44fr94c8009e0d9a518b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: 
 <34B0CDC6176518459F3A96E8C09196B8064C4EEE@darth-vader.nijmegen.gx.nl>
	 <90a8d1c00709170218t3e33d44fr94c8009e0d9a518b@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/17/07, Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi martijn,
>
> On 9/17/07, Martijn Hendriks <martijnh@gx.nl> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The QName class does not do any validation on the syntax of the local
> > part. As a result, it is really easy to destroy your repository by
> > registration of a nodetype with, for instance, a property with QName
> > {http://myapp/a}local1:local2. The NodeTypeRegistry only validates the
> > prefix part on registration. The local part is validated when the
> > custom_nodetypes.xml are read in on a subsequent startup which will fail
> > because of the invalid name... (JR 1.3)
> >
> > The javadoc of the Qname constructor says explicitly that the format of
> > the local part is not validated and that the NameFormat class should be
> > used. Imo it would be good to validate the local part in both the
> > constructor and the valueOf method, or is there a reason not to do this?
>
> QName's are only heavily used internally and assumed to be syntactically

erm, i meant: "heavily used and internally only"

> correct. validations are intentionally avoided for performance reasons.
>
> cheers
> stefan
>
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> >
> > Martijn Hendriks
> > <GX> creative online development B.V.
> >
> > t: 024 - 3888 261
> > f: 024 - 3888 621
> > e: martijnh@gx.nl
> >
> > Wijchenseweg 111
> > 6538 SW Nijmegen
> > http://www.gx.nl/
> >
>