Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6350 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2007 06:52:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Apr 2007 06:52:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 10060 invoked by uid 500); 19 Apr 2007 06:52:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-commons-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 10019 invoked by uid 500); 19 Apr 2007 06:52:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 9913 invoked by uid 99); 19 Apr 2007 06:52:45 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:52:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of david_williams@us.ibm.com designates 32.97.110.154 as permitted sender) Received: from [32.97.110.154] (HELO e36.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.154) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:52:37 -0700 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3J6qGjs005117 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:52:16 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l3J6qGwh200762 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:52:16 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l3J6qGK1004113 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:52:16 -0600 Received: from d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com (d03nm120.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.146]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3J6qGvT004110 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:52:16 -0600 To: commons-dev@xml.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: A few questions about details X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: David M Williams Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:52:14 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM120/03/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF32 | October 17, 2006) at 04/19/2007 00:52:16, Serialize complete at 04/19/2007 00:52:16 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0025B4E7852572C2_=" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0025B4E7852572C2_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" On http://xml.apache.org/commons/ I read: Issues Jan-02: our current SAX and JAXP code may not pass the current J2EE CTS test suite, since we have bugfixes above what those CTS tests mandate. If you don't know what that is, you don't care; otherwise ask on commons-dev for an update. So ... I'm asking for an update! :) First, does that Jan-02 mean the second day of January this year, or, the Month of January in the year 2002 ... in which case, I'd assume the comment is completely out of date? My _real_ reason for asking, is I would like to confirm or disconfirm that the code in xml-apis.jar is the exact same code that would be available from it's original sources, >From a quick analysis, for example, when I look at the SAX code from xml-commons-external-1.3.04-src and compare it to the SAX code from 2.0.2 (sax2r3) There is two extra files in the apache version: SecuritySupport.java, and SecuritySupport12.java. So ... I'm wondering, does this sound right? Hava I made a mistake and they really are supposed to be the same? Would there be similar small differences in the org.w3c.dom packages and javax.xml packages? Is there any where these differences are explained or documtned? And ... the _real_ reason I want to know all this, is I am working on creating OSGi bundles for use with Eclipse. And, my end-goal is (mostly) to use the xerces implementation. In which case, I assume I would _have_ to use the sax APIs from Apache not their original source. And, if I do that, any advice on how I should represent the _version_ of those sax APIs? Version 2.0.2.1304xxxxxx (just to sort of reflect it came from xml-commons version 1.3.04? Any advice welcome. --=_alternative 0025B4E7852572C2_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
On
http://xml.apache.org/commons/

I read:

Issues Jan-02: our current SAX and JAXP code may not pass the current J2EE CTS test suite, since we have bugfixes
above what those CTS tests mandate. If you don't know what that is, you don't care; otherwise ask on commons-dev for
an update.

So ... I'm asking for an update! :)

First, does that Jan-02 mean the second day of January this year, or, the Month of January in the year 2002 ... in which case,
I'd assume the comment is completely out of date?


My _real_ reason for asking, is I would like to confirm or disconfirm that the code in xml-apis.jar is the exact same code that would be
available from it's original sources,

From a quick analysis, for example, when I look at the SAX code from
xml-commons-external-1.3.04-src
and compare it to the SAX code from
2.0.2 (sax2r3)
There is two extra files in the apache version:
SecuritySupport.java, and
SecuritySupport12.java.

So ... I'm wondering, does this sound right? Hava I made a mistake and they really are supposed to be the same?

Would there be similar small differences in the org.w3c.dom packages and javax.xml packages?

Is there any where these differences are explained or documtned?

And ... the _real_ reason I want to know all this, is I am working on creating OSGi bundles for use with Eclipse.
And, my end-goal is (mostly) to use the xerces implementation. In which case, I assume I would _have_ to use the
sax APIs from Apache not their original source. And, if I do that, any advice on how I should represent the _version_ of those
sax APIs? Version 2.0.2.1304xxxxxx (just to sort of reflect it came from xml-commons version 1.3.04?

Any advice welcome.



--=_alternative 0025B4E7852572C2_=--