Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-ant-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 65296 invoked from network); 27 May 2002 02:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 May 2002 02:05:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 24099 invoked by uid 97); 27 May 2002 02:06:01 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24052 invoked by uid 97); 27 May 2002 02:06:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Ant Developers List" Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24034 invoked by uid 98); 27 May 2002 02:05:59 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Message-ID: <3CF1949D.3080403@cortexebusiness.com.au> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:06:21 +1000 From: Conor MacNeill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ant Developers List Subject: Re: [IMPORTANT!] Fix Ant 1.5 Support for JAXP [Was: XMLCatalog.java -- patch breaks bootstrap.bat Yikes!] References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N costinm@covalent.net wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2002, Conor MacNeill wrote: > > There is a section in all JCP specs that (aledgedly) require any > implementation to pass a test suite, otherwise it can't be distributed. > There are also requirements to distribute the full impl, not a subset. > Of course, xerces is a clean-room implementation ( but as it was > discussed, it is not clear if clean-room is ok - and some people who > contributed on the impl. have read the spec ). > > Again, it all depends on how much you care about small prints and > how you want to interpret it. Some believe that are issues with the parts > of the licence that restrict clean-room impl of a spec. And I doubt > Sun will sue ASF for this. > > In any case, distributing Jaxp without Xalan can't be called a > 'JAXP1.1 implementation', and can't pass the test suite ( since > 1/2 tests are for XSLT ). > > For an official answer you should contact Sam Ruby, or someone who > have access to the licensing list on ASF. All I can say is that > distributing it without xalan makes me very uncomfortable. OK thanks. IANAL either so the following is just my opinion :-) According to the current JCP requirements I'm not sure we could distribute Ant with either Xerces or Xalan since I am not aware that either pass their JCP test suite (there may be some exemptions negotiated for Apache that I am unaware of). If the press releases were any guide, this issue should be resolved but I don't think the final resolution has happened yet. You know, if what you contend is true, Xerces itself could not be distributed without Xalan :-) If we do decide to include Xalan we need to figure out which xml-apis jar to include since Xerces and Xalan appear to use different versions :-( Can anyone vouch for the suitability of using Xerces with Xalan's xml-apis jar or do we have to take a leap of faith? Conor -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: