You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org> on 2001/06/05 10:37:34 UTC
Configuration + XML parsers
Hi,
I have been playing with parsers other than Xerces and think we should add
a Jaxp1.1 interface in there. To maintain backwards compatibility what we
could do is check the property that holds sax parser and if present use
that, otherwise we could defer to jaxp mechanisms for loading parser. This
would allow us to drop in arbitrary parsers without fiddling with system
properties (which we currently have to do). Thoughts?
Also I was going to make SAXConfigurationBuilder use rawName rather than
localName for configuration elements. The reason is that current
configuration assumed that no namespaces were present but if they are, or
namespace resolution is turned off it will produce invalid results. (ie
localname="" if namespac resolution turned off or throwing away namespace
part if namespaces are present). Changing this would be a change in
behaviour but I believe it is a bug fix rather than change - what do you
think? Should I change it?
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Configuration + XML parsers
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 12:38 PM 6/5/01 +0100, Paul Hammant wrote:
>> I have been playing with parsers other than Xerces and think we should add
>> a Jaxp1.1 interface in there. To maintain backwards compatibility what we
>> could do is check the property that holds sax parser and if present use
>> that, otherwise we could defer to jaxp mechanisms for loading parser. This
>> would allow us to drop in arbitrary parsers without fiddling with system
>> properties (which we currently have to do). Thoughts?
>
>"Drop in" where? Crimson provided as a default? Peter does this part
address my Batik posting?
partially. It allows that any arbitrary Jaxp1.1 parser to be dropped into
ClassLoader that framework resides in and work. Now you need to set a
system property to get it to work.
>> Also I was going to make SAXConfigurationBuilder use rawName rather than
>> localName for configuration elements. The reason is that current
>> configuration assumed that no namespaces were present but if they are, or
>> namespace resolution is turned off it will produce invalid results. (ie
>> localname="" if namespac resolution turned off or throwing away namespace
>> part if namespaces are present). Changing this would be a change in
>> behaviour but I believe it is a bug fix rather than change - what do you
>> think? Should I change it?
>
>The org.xml.sax.helpers.XMLParserFactory.makeParser() would still work,
despite being a different
>design to SAXConfigurationBuilder ??
not sure what you mean.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Configuration + XML parsers
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been playing with parsers other than Xerces and think we should add
> a Jaxp1.1 interface in there. To maintain backwards compatibility what we
> could do is check the property that holds sax parser and if present use
> that, otherwise we could defer to jaxp mechanisms for loading parser. This
> would allow us to drop in arbitrary parsers without fiddling with system
> properties (which we currently have to do). Thoughts?
>
> Also I was going to make SAXConfigurationBuilder use rawName rather than
> localName for configuration elements. The reason is that current
> configuration assumed that no namespaces were present but if they are, or
> namespace resolution is turned off it will produce invalid results. (ie
> localname="" if namespac resolution turned off or throwing away namespace
> part if namespaces are present). Changing this would be a change in
> behaviour but I believe it is a bug fix rather than change - what do you
> think? Should I change it?
+1 from me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Configuration + XML parsers
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> I have been playing with parsers other than Xerces and think we should add
> a Jaxp1.1 interface in there. To maintain backwards compatibility what we
> could do is check the property that holds sax parser and if present use
> that, otherwise we could defer to jaxp mechanisms for loading parser. This
> would allow us to drop in arbitrary parsers without fiddling with system
> properties (which we currently have to do). Thoughts?
"Drop in" where? Crimson provided as a default? Peter does this part address my Batik posting?
> Also I was going to make SAXConfigurationBuilder use rawName rather than
> localName for configuration elements. The reason is that current
> configuration assumed that no namespaces were present but if they are, or
> namespace resolution is turned off it will produce invalid results. (ie
> localname="" if namespac resolution turned off or throwing away namespace
> part if namespaces are present). Changing this would be a change in
> behaviour but I believe it is a bug fix rather than change - what do you
> think? Should I change it?
The org.xml.sax.helpers.XMLParserFactory.makeParser() would still work, despite being a different
design to SAXConfigurationBuilder ??
=====
Regards - Paul H
====
CVS -1, Perforce +1
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org