RE: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-based files vs. common utils

[Kelly Campbell <ca...@channelpoint.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com [mailto:Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com]
> *Ah-ha!* The important point I promised!  I think it's very 
> important to
> discuss the ADK makeup in terms of two kinds of things that 
> might go into
> it: *standards-based* files, versus other *common Apache utils*
> /files/whatever.

I agree with this assesment. I actually see three different needs... the
first two which we've been discussing are for building Apache XML projects:
common standards (DOM, SAX, JAXP), and other common code used between apache
projects (which apache owns... stuff like log4j, ant, etc. Note: I can't
really think of anything besides Jakarta projects that fit into this
category at this time. Maybe the org.apache.xml.* packages Tim mentioned). 

The third need I see is not neccessarily for Apache developers or Apache
project building, but for users. This is what I would call an Apache XML
Development Kit. This would be a rollup of the most commonly used XML
projects bundled together and tested together for new users and users who
don't want to deal with all the various versions of stuff piecemeal. The
makeup of this kit would include several technologies like Xerces, Xalan,
Fop, SOAP, Axis. 

I think a similar bundle would be nice to have for some Jakarta projects.
e.g. Ant + log4j + ORO. In cases like Ant, Tomcat, Cocoon, these could
depend on the XML Dev Kit instead of rebundling xerces with each one.

Another idea I've been wanting to execute on for a while is an autoconf-like
system for Java. Gump is moving in the right direction here. This would make
it easier to both build and run java projects which have dependencies on
other libraries. In FOP for example, we just recently started bundling the
versions of xerces, xalan, and other jars we needed and it blows the
distribution up from about 4 MB to almost 9 MB for the zip file. On the plus
side, it has really reduced the number of "Can't build" mails to the mailing
list. 

It just feels wrong to have all these jars in FOP's cvs tree that I've
already got 20 copies of elsewhere. It feels like these libraries are gonna
snowball as more and more projects start bundling other projects. Hence why
I think the AXDK is a good idea.

-Kelly

---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-based files vs. common utils

[Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Campbell" <ca...@channelpoint.com>
To: <ge...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-based
files vs. common utils


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com [mailto:Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com]
> > *Ah-ha!* The important point I promised!  I think it's very
> > important to
> > discuss the ADK makeup in terms of two kinds of things that
> > might go into
> > it: *standards-based* files, versus other *common Apache utils*
> > /files/whatever.
>
> I agree with this assesment. I actually see three different needs... the
> first two which we've been discussing are for building Apache XML
projects:
> common standards (DOM, SAX, JAXP), and other common code used between
apache
> projects (which apache owns... stuff like log4j, ant, etc. Note: I can't
> really think of anything besides Jakarta projects that fit into this
> category at this time. Maybe the org.apache.xml.* packages Tim mentioned).
>
> The third need I see is not neccessarily for Apache developers or Apache
> project building, but for users. This is what I would call an Apache XML
> Development Kit. This would be a rollup of the most commonly used XML
> projects bundled together and tested together for new users and users who
> don't want to deal with all the various versions of stuff piecemeal. The
> makeup of this kit would include several technologies like Xerces, Xalan,
> Fop, SOAP, Axis.

Now this idea, I like very much.  I think that all the projects would
benefit
from integration and testing for end users.




---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-basedfiles vs. common utils

[Tinny Ng <tn...@ca.ibm.com>]

James Melton wrote:

> A discussion thread in xalan-dev has brought up the idea of creating a
> shared code base that includes things like the SAX and abstract DOM
> classes and an Exception base class. What are people's thoughts on this?

Are we going to divide this ADK into Java and C++, like Xerces-J and Xerces-C?

Since there is no standard C++ bindings, currently it is up to Xerces-C to define
it.  So for example for DOM, Xerces-C has something like "DOM_Document",
"DOM_Element"; and with the proposed new faster DOM, we will have something like
"IDOM_Document", "IDOM_Element".   So when we create the new "ADK-C", does this mean
we are going to define a pseudo-standard C++ bindings and ask all projects to
follow?  And are we going to pull the existing "DOM_*" or the new "IDOM_*" or both
from Xerces-C to ADK-C??

Tinny



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

Re: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-basedfiles vs. common utils

["Randall J. Parr" <RP...@TemporalArts.COM>]

Kelly Campbell wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com [mailto:Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com]
> > *Ah-ha!* The important point I promised!  I think it's very
> > important to
> > discuss the ADK makeup in terms of two kinds of things that
> > might go into
> > it: *standards-based* files, versus other *common Apache utils*
> > /files/whatever.
>
> I agree with this assesment. I actually see three different needs... the
> first two which we've been discussing are for building Apache XML projects:
> common standards (DOM, SAX, JAXP), and other common code used between apache
> projects (which apache owns... stuff like log4j, ant, etc. Note: I can't
> really think of anything besides Jakarta projects that fit into this
> category at this time. Maybe the org.apache.xml.* packages Tim mentioned).

I really think this is a good idea.

I would like to ask if you'all are aware of the many, many discussions of this
same are that have been ongoing in the jarkarta lists (esp the Ant list) about
this same kind of factoring out basic libraries.

I, as someone who uses/develops with some from all the various Apache projects
would really, really, like to see some agreement on base / foundattion packages.
As mentioned before the common standards are kind of a given. I would really
like to see the Apache projects using common packages for logging, configuration
/ property file loading, and some of that. Not only would it make life easier to
use and administer, it would make a strong case for using the common packages in
our own development and for contributing fixes/extensions/documentation of our
own.

Thanks

R.Parr



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org