SAX 1.0 vs SAX 2.0

[ru...@us.ibm.com]

While Duncan is off contemplating changes to the core interfaces, I thought
it would be a good time to look into something even more internal -
hopefully something that we will still need once everything settles down -
JAXP.

First comment: JAXP works as advertised - one *can* switch between Xerces
and ProjectX with a simple change in classpath.  Unfortunately, it can't
work miracles - there is a substantial difference between the two.

ProjectX only supports SAX 1.0.  Xerces's support for SAX 1.0 is
deprecated.

Choices are:

   1) Stay with SAX 1.0 and accept the deprecation warnings for .  Note:
   there are a *LOT* of deprecation warnings.  Screen fulls.  Many screen
   fulls.

   2) Stay with SAX 1.0 and turn off deprecation warnings on Ant builds.

   3) Go with SAX 2.0.  This makes Sun's parser not an option for now, but
   presumably that will be rectified.

I don't like option 1.  While I typically want to know this type of
information, there are enough warnings that any signal will be drowned out
by the noise.  Note: there already are two deprecation warnings when
compiling with JDK 1.1.x related to Sun deprecating PrintStream in 1.1 and
then reversing course with 1.2.

Option 3 is clearly the right long term direction, but presumably there is
demand for the Sun parser.  Option 2 supports the most parsers and probably
is the right choice for now, I just wanted everybody to know about the
ramification on turning off the deprecation warnings.

Those are my thoughts.  What does everybody else think?

- Sam Ruby

Feedback to mpfoemme: tabs are eight spaces and diff -u format is
preferred.  Other than these cosmetic items: superb job!  I particularly
like the capturing of line numbers so that errors are more easily located.

Re: SAX 1.0 vs SAX 2.0

[James Duncan Davidson <ja...@eng.sun.com>]

>    2) Stay with SAX 1.0 and turn off deprecation warnings on Ant builds.

+1 -- Actually, use SAX 1.0 through JAXP.

.duncan

Re: SAX 1.0 vs SAX 2.0

[Vitaly Stulsky <vi...@yahoo.com>]

>
>
> While Duncan is off contemplating changes to the core interfaces, I thought
> it would be a good time to look into something even more internal -
> hopefully something that we will still need once everything settles down -
> JAXP.
>
> First comment: JAXP works as advertised - one *can* switch between Xerces
> and ProjectX with a simple change in classpath.  Unfortunately, it can't
> work miracles - there is a substantial difference between the two.
>
> ProjectX only supports SAX 1.0.  Xerces's support for SAX 1.0 is
> deprecated.
>
> Choices are:
>
>    1) Stay with SAX 1.0 and accept the deprecation warnings for .  Note:
>    there are a *LOT* of deprecation warnings.  Screen fulls.  Many screen
>    fulls.
>
>    2) Stay with SAX 1.0 and turn off deprecation warnings on Ant builds.
>
>    3) Go with SAX 2.0.  This makes Sun's parser not an option for now, but
>    presumably that will be rectified.
>

For the long term decisions option 3 is much more preferable that options (1) or
(2). From my point of view, full screen of warnings or turning the warinnigs off
bad practice, cause this road can lead to the problems with coding. First
option may lead to long warning log analisis or absense of this analisys at all.
Second one removes log analisis completely. I don't like 'dirty' screen while
building something.
Also the third point is clear from perespective point of view.






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

RE: SAX 1.0 vs SAX 2.0

[Conor MacNeill <co...@ebinteractive.com.au>]

>
>    1) Stay with SAX 1.0 and accept the deprecation warnings for .  Note:
>    there are a *LOT* of deprecation warnings.  Screen fulls.  Many screen
>    fulls.
>
>    2) Stay with SAX 1.0 and turn off deprecation warnings on Ant builds.
>
>    3) Go with SAX 2.0.  This makes Sun's parser not an option for now, but
>    presumably that will be rectified.
>
>

+1 for option 3