xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Edwin Goei" <Edwin.G...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:49:11 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@jtcsv.com>

> James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> >
> > on 7/10/00 6:41 PM, Arnaud Le Hors at lehors@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds great! The fact is that we're also interested in a new version
of
> > > Xerces which is more modular. As a matter of fact, we've given it
quite
> > > some thoughts already, and Andy has even written down a first draft of
a
> > > design document on it that we'll be happy to send out as input.
> >
> > So why hasn't this been public? Why did I have to take a hammer to start
a
> > discussion about next versions? Why are your own developers aksing "Why
> > should we start a new look?"
> >
> > Now I'm really confused. :)
> >
> > Why aim all guns at me and bash me when you've been talking internally
about
> > a new version for a while?
> >
> > > As you can see this appears to be very much in line with what James
> > > seems to be looking for! So, lets talk about it.
> >
> > Great.. Let's do. Though I wouldn't call what I'm thinking about a
pipeline
> >
> > > We first need to discuss the requirements though, I'll follow up on
this
> > > on the xerces-j list.
> >
> > That's a discussion that I started. Please by all means jump in. I'd
like to
> > see Andy's ideas. I'd like to see all of us work it together to come up
with
> > the best possible scenario.
> >
> > I do have to say that callling it Xerces2 is premature. It should just
have
> > a code name. It shouldn't have it's own mailing list. I should just be
open
> > on the -dev list.
>
> I disagree. I don't see why we need a new name. Given that it's
> not a new project, otherwise we'd have to have it discussed and approved
> on the pmc list first, let's call it what we'd like it to be: Xerces 2.

If it was named "Xerces 2" then people would object that the code was
predetermined to be version 2.  That is why a codename was choosen.  The
codename may have been called "foo" and work would occur on the "foo" design
and in the "foo" tree.  It may die or some of the changes might get
integrated back into Xerces or it may become the new parser.  Which outcome
happens cannot be decided until later, when there is a working
implementation.  I believe this is what Stefano was saying in his earlier
email.  This is why a codename is used instead of presuming that a tree will
be the next version.  This is what happened in Tomcat and Apache 2.0 for
example.

-Edwin



Mime
View raw message