Calling mmc from java app and define a .jar for XML validation

[mladd]

Development is on Windows XP, and WTX is 8.1.0.2.
Prod will be on Linux

I'm in a bit of a bind here in my current development. We are using Websphere Process Server for all of the interfaces, but WTX for the actual transformation. WPS is calling the WTX mmc's via the Java API.

The problem we are having is that the XSD for WPS is in one location and the WTX xsd to validate the xml is in another location. there seems to be a disjoint in java when the map in memory is referencing a schema in a different location than where the java code thinks it is.

The solution (in talking with the WPS developers) is to allow them to point to a jar file which will include the location of the same xsd that the java app is using, removing the different locations of the xsd.

The problem is that it can't be hardcoded in the type tree importer, as the location will change on every platform.

So my question again, Is there a way to execute a map via the java api to specify a jar file (or classpath?) to point to where the xsd for validation will reside?

I know this is probably confusing, and as I am not a java developer, there is some mis-communication/mis-understanding between the WPS and WTX developers.

Thanks in advance!
Mike

 

[janhes]

I think the problem here is using the Xerces importer for XSD. It insists on validating xml input against the xsd at run time and I don't know of any way to turn it off.
I think if you use the Classic importer it will solve your problems as this doesn't insist on validation against the xsd at run time.

 

[mladd]

Thanks, Janhes. We were trying to avoid recreating all of our XML trees, and remap everything, especially since the two trees have a completely different format.

But there is some good news, it looks like it may be an issue between WPS and WTX, as far as versions go. The WPS server is being updated with 8.1.0.2 today, and that should solve the problem that we were originally seeing, hence my original question for a work around for the bug(?).

Thanks again!
-Mike