xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:15:59 GMT
on 7/11/00 3:53 PM, Arnaud Le Hors at lehors@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I actually simply don't understand the requirement about JDOM. DOM is an
> API, we need to provide classes that implement the API. This is true for
> JDOM. It's not an API. It's a set of classes that include a builder that
> works on SAX. So as long as we support SAX, which definitely is a
> requirement, we're all set on that front. Let's leave the debate of
> whether JDOM is a good thing or not outside of this project.

I Disagree. JDOM is an important up and coming API that already has
established a large and rapidly growing groundswell of support and in the
developer community.

You personally don't have to do the work to provide JDOM support -- as long
as the core architecture is pluggable and modular, then you can work on DOM
and Brett and co can work on JDOM and everybody wins.

Wouldn't this be sign of a development community getting along. :)

.duncan


Mime
View raw message