The regression tests ran cleanly for me after removing this jar file and
rebuilding Derby.
Regards,
-Rick
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Knut,
>
> I think that xml-apis.jar was added in revision 395643. Here's the svn
> info entry for that submission:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r395643 | fuzzylogic | 2006-04-20 10:07:39 -0700 (Thu, 20 Apr 2006) |
> 4 lines
>
> DERBY-1078: Move more files to 1.3 source/target tags. Add xml-api
> jars to
> compile XML classes with 1.3. Break shared hierarchy up into 1.3 and
> 1.4 parts.
> JDK 1.3 now passes basic tests when compiled with 1.5.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have repeated your experiment of successfully building Derby without
> xml-apis.jar. Narayanan raises a cautionary note about running the xml
> tests so I'm running all the regression tests now. I'll let you know
> how it turns out.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>> Narayanan wrote:
>>> Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I took a brief look at the contents of tools/java/xml-apis.jar in
>>>> the subversion repository, and it looked as if most of the classes
>>>> are part of the Java 1.4.2 runtime library. I also tried to remove
>>>> the file and all references to it in the build system, and the code
>>>> still built just fine. Does anyone know if the file is still
>>>> needed? Or was it only needed before when we built the code against
>>>> the Java 1.3 runtime library?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>> I believe xalan 2.7 jars are needed to run xml tests. The jars that
>>> come with 1.4 are 2.4.1 and are not sufficient.
>>
>> Thanks Narayanan,
>>
>> I'm aware of the fact that we need a newer Xalan for some of the XML
>> support at runtime. What I would like to know, is if xml-apis.jar is
>> still needed in order to build Derby. I think it mostly contains
>> interfaces, not Xalan implementation classes, and these interfaces
>> now seem to be part of Java SE. If it's not needed to build Derby
>> anymore, I think it would be good to remove it from the repository.
>> The fewer third-party jar files we have checked in, the better, IMO.
>>
>
|