Personally I think it’s ok to have this for only some failures. Others may
disagree though and start filing bug reports, leading to demands that we fix
said “bugs”, leading to a shift of resource away from other tasks.
My instinct is it’s worth it though. I’m curious what others think.
Adding more to the WildFly team's plate is a concern of mine as well.
I'm willing to do the work to finish this feature, and to help out
with any reported issues related to it in the future, but there would
still be some increase in the team's workload from it.
I think the path you’ve followed is a good way to get a lot of benefit
without being overly intrusive.
A medium sized concern is this has to be robust. It can’t be producing
misleading messages, as that’s worse than simply pointing to the line/col of
where the mistake was.
Agreed - there needs to be some confidence level that if the tool
can't meet for an error, it falls back to just pointing to the
line/col, printing the original message. I fact, that may be good
enough for the failures that bubble out of staxmapper as well.
A minor concern is how big the added dependencies are. (I don’t know.) We
want to keep WildFly Core small in footprint.
Right now, the only dependencies vdx (31k) has are commons-lang (which
is already a module in WildFly, but not core-feature-pack),
xmlschema-walker (100k), and xmlschema-core (168k). For the rest of
the work, I don't currently see needing any more dependencies.