You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@xalan.apache.org by Sh...@lotus.com on 2001/10/10 23:35:56 UTC
Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
For those who pay attention to this stuff: I've bulk-checkedin the copies
of DOM, SAX, and JAXP standards files from the xml-commons repository into
the xml-xalan repository. While the long term plan is to always pull these
standards-based files from the xml-commons repository, we haven't quite
taken that step. Also, while the current build script attempts to use the
files in xml-commons directly when compiling, it didn't use them for
building javadoc, and some of that was outdated.
Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
Also note, these files aren't technically under our control - they each are
files that are defined by external standards groups. So if we want to make
fixes to them (I'm thinking of Bugzilla#2291 especially here) then we
really need to also take these issues up with the external standards groups
that define them.
- Shane
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> BTW, I noticed crimson 1.1.3 includes now 1/2 of jaxp in crimson.jar ( and
> xalan is including the other 1/2 ). Previously we had the full jaxp in a
> jar.
>
> I remember we had a discussion about this long time ago, but don't know
> what was the result - one proposal was to have all 'common' files in a
> single jar, and not duplicate sax,dom,jaxp in all projects. The current
> aproach is also good ( have sax,dom,1/2jaxp in parser, 1/2jaxp in
> transformer ).
There was a thread on this some weeks ago on general@xml.apache.org.
The conclusion I came to for crimson and that I would recommend for
xerces and xalan is to put everything in a single jar file and not split
into separate API jar file(s). This make it simple for users and also
allows using JAXP API via current browser VMs like Netscape 4.7. The
latest version of crimson is distributed this way -- the jaxp.jar file
containing APIs was removed.
-Edwin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> BTW, I noticed crimson 1.1.3 includes now 1/2 of jaxp in crimson.jar ( and
> xalan is including the other 1/2 ). Previously we had the full jaxp in a
> jar.
>
> I remember we had a discussion about this long time ago, but don't know
> what was the result - one proposal was to have all 'common' files in a
> single jar, and not duplicate sax,dom,jaxp in all projects. The current
> aproach is also good ( have sax,dom,1/2jaxp in parser, 1/2jaxp in
> transformer ).
There was a thread on this some weeks ago on general@xml.apache.org.
The conclusion I came to for crimson and that I would recommend for
xerces and xalan is to put everything in a single jar file and not split
into separate API jar file(s). This make it simple for users and also
allows using JAXP API via current browser VMs like Netscape 4.7. The
latest version of crimson is distributed this way -- the jaxp.jar file
containing APIs was removed.
-Edwin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Edwin Goei wrote:
> costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> > > 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> > > applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
> >
> > The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
> > compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
>
> I believe the xml-commons version runs in both JDK 1.1 and Java 2. BTW,
> I don't usually read xalan-dev but I'm interested in this thread. I'd
> appreciated it if I am cc-ed.
Both work on JDK1.1 and Java2, but the impl is slightly different ( Shane
mentioned he'll do a diff - that wouldn't help ). The behavior is
the same.
BTW, I noticed crimson 1.1.3 includes now 1/2 of jaxp in crimson.jar ( and
xalan is including the other 1/2 ). Previously we had the full jaxp in a
jar.
I remember we had a discussion about this long time ago, but don't know
what was the result - one proposal was to have all 'common' files in a
single jar, and not duplicate sax,dom,jaxp in all projects. The current
aproach is also good ( have sax,dom,1/2jaxp in parser, 1/2jaxp in
transformer ).
Costin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Edwin Goei wrote:
> costinm@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> > > 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> > > applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
> >
> > The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
> > compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
>
> I believe the xml-commons version runs in both JDK 1.1 and Java 2. BTW,
> I don't usually read xalan-dev but I'm interested in this thread. I'd
> appreciated it if I am cc-ed.
Both work on JDK1.1 and Java2, but the impl is slightly different ( Shane
mentioned he'll do a diff - that wouldn't help ). The behavior is
the same.
BTW, I noticed crimson 1.1.3 includes now 1/2 of jaxp in crimson.jar ( and
xalan is including the other 1/2 ). Previously we had the full jaxp in a
jar.
I remember we had a discussion about this long time ago, but don't know
what was the result - one proposal was to have all 'common' files in a
single jar, and not duplicate sax,dom,jaxp in all projects. The current
aproach is also good ( have sax,dom,1/2jaxp in parser, 1/2jaxp in
transformer ).
Costin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> > 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> > applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
>
> The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
> compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
I believe the xml-commons version runs in both JDK 1.1 and Java 2. BTW,
I don't usually read xalan-dev but I'm interested in this thread. I'd
appreciated it if I am cc-ed.
-Edwin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
costinm@covalent.net wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> > 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> > applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
>
> The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
> compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
I believe the xml-commons version runs in both JDK 1.1 and Java 2. BTW,
I don't usually read xalan-dev but I'm interested in this thread. I'd
appreciated it if I am cc-ed.
-Edwin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
> For those who pay attention to this stuff: I've bulk-checkedin the copies
> of DOM, SAX, and JAXP standards files from the xml-commons repository into
> the xml-xalan repository. While the long term plan is to always pull these
> standards-based files from the xml-commons repository, we haven't quite
> taken that step. Also, while the current build script attempts to use the
> files in xml-commons directly when compiling, it didn't use them for
> building javadoc, and some of that was outdated.
+1 !
> Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
Costin
Re: Commons copies of DOM/JAXP/SAX checked into Xalan
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 Shane_Curcuru@lotus.com wrote:
> For those who pay attention to this stuff: I've bulk-checkedin the copies
> of DOM, SAX, and JAXP standards files from the xml-commons repository into
> the xml-xalan repository. While the long term plan is to always pull these
> standards-based files from the xml-commons repository, we haven't quite
> taken that step. Also, while the current build script attempts to use the
> files in xml-commons directly when compiling, it didn't use them for
> building javadoc, and some of that was outdated.
+1 !
> Tomorrow I'll diff these with the previous xalan copies (which I tagged
> 'before-commons') to make sure there weren't any bugfixes that we had
> applied to our copies but that didn't make it into the commons area.
The only significant difference should be in the workaround for jdk1.1
compat ( i.e. 2 different aproaches were used ).
Costin