OpenSAML user discussion

[Arnout Engelen <>]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:14:55PM -0500, Scott Cantor wrote:
>>> FWIW: I've also seen this error at some point, I believe when unittesting 
>>> my code, *after* adding a parameter to the jvm to endorse xalan/xerces.
>>
>> No, it happens when you *don't* endorse xalan.

I agree something seems to have gone wrong with endorsing xalan,
as indeed the stack trace shows com.sun.* stuff. You triggered me to
look at what happened again :).

Without endorsing xalan/xerces, I get (as expected):

12:27:01,903 ERROR 
nl.topicuszorg.saml.service.impl.SamlIdentityProviderServiceImpl - Could not 
bootstrap OpenSAML: xalan/xerces not (properly) endorsed
java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: This parser does not support 
specification "null" version "null"
        at 
javax.xml.parsers.DocumentBuilderFactory.setSchema(DocumentBuilderFactory.java:489)
        at 
org.opensaml.xml.parse.BasicParserPool.initializePool(BasicParserPool.java:482)

Now, I 'export 
MAVEN_OPTS=-Djava.endorsed.dirs=c:/workspaces/zorgportaal/endorsed'
and invoke maven again, and the error changes to:

12:34:27,152 ERROR org.opensaml.xml.XMLConfigurator - Configuration file does 
not validate against schema
org.xml.sax.SAXParseException: UndeclaredPrefix: Cannot resolve 'xt:DEFAULT' 
as a QName: the prefix 'xt' is not declared.
        at 
com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.jaxp.validation.Util.toSAXParseException(Util.java:109)
        at 
com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.jaxp.validation.ErrorHandlerAdaptor.error(ErrorHandlerAdaptor.java:104)
        at 
com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.impl.XMLErrorReporter.reportError(XMLErrorReporter.java:382)
        at 
com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.impl.XMLErrorReporter.reportError(XMLErrorReporter.java:316)

As I said, this is not really a problem in our case, as the code works fine 
in the servlet container where it's actually used, so I haven't really dug in 
deeper. However, the behavior does strike me as odd, and I'd like to know when
someone finds out what exactly is going on :).

>> I'm pretty sure the validity of the XML isn't the root of the problem.
>
> No, it's the lack of validity of Sun's broken XML code that's the root of 
> the problem. The XML is fine, and the error message is clearly nonsense.

Agreed.


Arnout