OpenSAML user discussion

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> Ah, right.  I'm honestly not sure how to trap that one because it
> doesn't through a unique error.  That particular error gets through
> basically for any validation or namespace problem.

Yeah, I wondered whether we had a way to just hack in a check for it during
the configuration parse operation since that's in one spot. Just a thought.

Or even just create a self-contained test of a parse of a file that's
built-in and if it fails, you know Xalan is horked. I know from experience
that our time is saved doing the test than answering the question every
time. Even if people don't read the message and ask, they look dumb asking,
so there's still a payoff. ;-) sort of
 
-- Scott