xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett McLaughlin <brett.mclaugh...@lutris.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:28:32 GMT
>>    * Factor in tree based producers. We'd like to see DOM and JDOM up
>>      front.
>-1 on JDOM for the core.  Just my opinion.  I don't like it, I think it
>misleads developers about the XML data model, and I would rather not see
>Apache support it.

I, as expected, think this is ridiculous. Not because it is true or
false, but because we sent you a version of JDOM before anyone else ever
saw it - pre-beta. And we have never gotten one comment from you, or one
mail on our mailing lists (are you subsribed? It doesn't look like it!),
saying what these problems are. I think that you could certainly help
solve or better understand, and educate us, on what you see those
problems are. This is incredibly close-minded, though - this would be
like me saying Xalan is not really a good idea, and (as I have not)
never having gotten involved in the mailing lists, and never having
posted suggestions to fix it.

In my mind, it's a -1 without a reason. I would be more than happy to
see you hop on jdom-interest and let us know what things you see
problems with. Let us know what version you have used (have you used it?
Beta 3? 4? CVS? tried the samples?), and help us correct the problems.
The bottom line, and James can attest to this, is that it has a
/substantial/ following. Ask James what he got asked over and over at
JavaOne, often the first questions. There are sessions on it at many of
the major XML conferences coming up. And if we do things right, it is
simply a module you can personally ignore. 

I will be honest, though - if JDOM isn't supported at all, I can promise
that we will pull large numbers of folks away - I have a 2nd edition of
Java and XML that will sell lots (as the first one promotes JDOM and
Xerces, I would have hoped to have people at least give credit there for
my making attempts to encourage interaction), and JDOM has a strong
following. Why make us choose between another, JDOM-supportable parser,
and one that is not, esp. if you can use it or not use it as a module?



View raw message