Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 24030 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2000 19:58:08 -0000 Received: from benjamin.webslingerz.com (206.66.49.217) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 30 Nov 2000 19:58:08 -0000 Received: from benjamin.webslingerZ.com (benjamin.webslingerZ.com [206.66.49.217]) by benjamin.webslingerZ.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F26C0EA for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:10:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:10:48 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Ball To: Subject: Re: XObject In-Reply-To: <3A2673C1.E24F7170@mail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Ross Burton wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:12:55AM +0000, Jeremy Quinn wrote: > > > At 13:45 -0500 29/11/00, Donald Ball wrote: > > > So either we officially add the org.apache.cocoon.framework heirarchy to > > > Cocoon 2, or we define a new common location for both C1 and C2 and > > > depreciate org.apache.cocoon.framework.XObject. > > > > I'd rather not add a new directory just for XObject. Would it > > not make sense for it to be in either the 'xml' or 'util' > > packages? Since C1 doesn't have the 'xml' package, I guess > > there is sane, given the functionality the XObject provides. > > Thoughts? > > I'm for deprecating C1 XObject, then creating a new XObject > org.apache.cocoon.xml.XObject with the new SAX2 methods and putting it > in C1 and C2. Might upset some C1 users however... the whole _point_ of the XObject class was to provide a bridge between C1 and C2, right? doesn't it make sense to keep it in the same location between projects, even if it doesn't make sense in the C2 directory structure. not that i care, i never wrote an XObject class, but still. - donald