Well, I'm not in love with the custom processing...  I just fall
slightly on the not-XMLBeans side of the fence.  I'm certainly open to
alternatives or discussion.

Thanks,
     Aaron

On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> Granted 2m seems a bit hefty though...
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
> > attributes.xsd...  :)
> >
> > But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
> > simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
> > ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
> > for the other stuff anyway.  Also, config.xml has to be loaded
> > super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
> > high in the class loader hierarchy presently.  Since it's a couple of
> > MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
> > anything at all.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      Aaron
> >
> > On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> >> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
> >> processing (config.xml) ?
> >>
> >> --jason
> >>
>
>