Re: Why we have our own SAXParser interface?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:

> Carsten Ziegeler napisał(a):
>> The main reason was to have a simple bean based implementation  
>> that is not tied to Avalon/Excalibur.
>> The sax parser is one of our core components so having this inside  
>> Cocoon makes sense and reduces dependencies while at the same time  
>> allows refactoring the stuff to better fit our needs.
>
> Just to be sure: we should opt for using new interface everywhere  
> in Cocoon, right?
>
Yes, I think so - at least for new code we should use the new  
interfaces.
Actually I forgot the main reason for the new stuff :) The Avalon  
version is pooled which does not fit nicely into the bean approach  
(and Spring); we have supported for pooling Avalon components, but  
obviously pooling is not the best solution. The new stuff does not  
require pooling anymore.

Carsten

> -- 
> Grzegorz Kossakowski

--
Carsten Ziegeler

Re: Why we have our own SAXParser interface?

[Grzegorz Kossakowski <gk...@apache.org>]

Carsten Ziegeler napisał(a):

> Yes, I think so - at least for new code we should use the new interfaces.
> Actually I forgot the main reason for the new stuff :) The Avalon
> version is pooled which does not fit nicely into the bean approach (and
> Spring); we have supported for pooling Avalon components, but obviously
> pooling is not the best solution. The new stuff does not require pooling
> anymore.
> 

I see. Thanks for explanation!

-- 
Grzegorz Kossakowski