commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [jelly] ParsteTag class to become more abstract ?
Date Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:25:06 GMT
If you're willing to do the work this sounds fine with me. Then we could
have a jdom library or a W3C DOM library. One nice patch would be to provide
a generic Navigator for Jaxen so that it'd evaluate XPath expressions on any
kind of XML object model. Then it wouldn't matter which xml library was used
to create DOM-ish objects, all the XPath related tags (JellyUnit etc) would
just work.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Libbrecht" <paul@activemath.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons User List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:27 PM
Subject: [jelly] ParsteTag class to become more abstract ?


>
> Hi,
>
>
> As I am using and intend to use JDOM for my project, I would like to
> imitate portions of the very nice XML tag-library of Jelly.
>
> At least for now, I'd like jdom:parse, jdom:set, and jdom:copyOf.
> For the parsing operations, I would enjoy subclassing
> org.apache.commons.jelly.tags.xml.ParseTag which has everything needed
> except...
>
> -> it's in the XML tag-library so my JDOM thing would depend on the
> DOM4j thing which the XML tag-library is !
> -> it has no convincing reasons, that I see, to actually use dom4j
> Documents as results...
>
> Any chance we could switch to something slightly more abstract within a
> utility package in jelly ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>


Mime
View raw message