SAX parsing problem

[silviu]

I have the following XML string that I want to parse using the SAX
parser. If I remove the portion of the XML string between the <audit>
and </audit> tags the SAX is parsing correctly. Otherwise SAX wouldn't
do the parsing. What's wrong with this string (between <audit> and
</audit> tags)?
I am using SAX/Xerces 2.3.0 on Sun 8.
Thanks in advance of any help. Nick Roman

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <lyr3:L3Transaction
xmlns:lyr3="urn:layer.three.activation"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<audit>15:35:05 emsTransaction::setState TRANS_PENDING 15:35:06
emsRequest::setUndoable id(1502d70) request is undoable 15:35:06
emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (waiting for response from
'') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (response
'Enter password: a') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending
(waiting for response from 'cisco') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState
id(1502d70) pending (response 'sangria2') 15:35:06
emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (waiting for response from
'enable') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (response
'Enter password:') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending
(waiting for response from 'cisco') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState
id(1502d70) pending (response 'sangria2 (enable)') 15:35:06
emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (waiting for response from
'set length 0') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending
(response 'sangria2 (enable)') 15:35:06 emsRequest::setState
id(1502d70) pending (waiting for response from 'show version')
15:35:07 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (response 'sangria2
(enable)') 15:35:07 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (waiting
for response from 'show running-config') 15:35:10 emsRequest::setState
id(1502d70) pending (response 'sangria2 (enable)') 15:35:10
emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending (waiting for response from
'show vlan') 15:35:10 emsRequest::setState id(1502d70) pending
(response 'sangria2 (enable)') 15:35:10 emsRequest::setState
id(1502d70) complete ((cli6509v1Anchor) complete) 15:35:10
emsRequest::setUndoable id(159b780) request is undoable 15:35:10
emsRequest::setState id(159b780) pending (waiting for response from
'set vlan 667 name test-vlan type ethernet mtu 1500 said 100667
state active') 15:35:10 emsRequest::setObjectAltered request will
require undo during rollback 15:35:10 emsRequest::setState
id(159b780) pending (response 'Vlan 667 configuration successful')
15:35:10 emsRequest::setState id(159b780) ((cli6509v1AddVlan)
complete) 15:35:10 emsTransaction::setState TRANS_COMPLETE</audit>
<statuscode>4</statuscode>
<request>
<requestType action="add" type="vlan"/>
</request>
</lyr3:L3Transaction>

[David Megginson]

th*************@yahoo.com (silviu) writes:

I have the following XML string that I want to parse using the SAX
parser. If I remove the portion of the XML string between the <audit>
and </audit> tags the SAX is parsing correctly. Otherwise SAX wouldn't
do the parsing. What's wrong with this string (between <audit> and
</audit> tags)?

I can see nothing wrong with what you posted. Can you let us know
what error message you got?
All the best,
David

[silviu]

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for you answering my question.
Following the required info:
1. If <audit>...</audit> tags are NOT present in the string
then SAX parses correctly the XML string.
2. If <audit>...</audit> info ARE present in the string
then SAX parser will not do nothing; i.e. nothing will happen and
no error messages will be issued.

So, I my opinion, <audit>...</audit> info causes SAX parser to
misbehave. The question I have is: what is wrong with
<audit>...</audit> info?
Thanks,
Silviu

David Megginson <no****@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<87************@megginson.com>...

th*************@yahoo.com (silviu) writes:

I have the following XML string that I want to parse using the SAX
parser. If I remove the portion of the XML string between the <audit>
and </audit> tags the SAX is parsing correctly. Otherwise SAX wouldn't
do the parsing. What's wrong with this string (between <audit> and
</audit> tags)?

I can see nothing wrong with what you posted. Can you let us know
what error message you got?
All the best,
David

[David Megginson]

th*************@yahoo.com (silviu) writes:

Thanks a lot for you answering my question.
Following the required info:
1. If <audit>...</audit> tags are NOT present in the string
then SAX parses correctly the XML string.
2. If <audit>...</audit> info ARE present in the string
then SAX parser will not do nothing; i.e. nothing will happen and
no error messages will be issued.

That sounds like a software bug. Try a different SAX parser and see
what happens.
All the best,
David

[Bob Foster]

"silviu" <th*************@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5**************************@posting.google.c om...

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for you answering my question.
Hi Silviu,

But you didn't answer David's question. What error message are you getting?
I can tell you for a fact that the latest version of Xerces has no problem
with your document. AFAIK, there isn't any problem.

Bob Foster
Following the required info:
1. If <audit>...</audit> tags are NOT present in the string
then SAX parses correctly the XML string.
2. If <audit>...</audit> info ARE present in the string
then SAX parser will not do nothing; i.e. nothing will happen and
no error messages will be issued.

So, I my opinion, <audit>...</audit> info causes SAX parser to
misbehave. The question I have is: what is wrong with
<audit>...</audit> info?
Thanks,
Silviu

David Megginson <no****@attglobal.net> wrote in message

news:<87************@megginson.com>...

th*************@yahoo.com (silviu) writes:

I have the following XML string that I want to parse using the SAX
parser. If I remove the portion of the XML string between the <audit>
and </audit> tags the SAX is parsing correctly. Otherwise SAX wouldn't
do the parsing. What's wrong with this string (between <audit> and
</audit> tags)?

I can see nothing wrong with what you posted. Can you let us know
what error message you got?
All the best,
David