xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_B...@lotus.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:44:03 GMT

> are you subsribed? It doesn't look like it!

Yes I am.  It is a very busy list, and I don't read the mails often, I
admit.  I did take a look at it initially, and I think I did send you

My statement may have been a bit strong, since I have not taken a good look
at JDOM lately.  I would rather simply see, in the *core*, one tree model
supported, and I personally think it should be the W3C DOM.  If an add on
module for JDOM is added, I would have no objection to JDOM or any other
tree model for that matter.

Sorry if this came out of left field.


                    Brett McLaughlin                                                     
                    <brett.mclaughlin@l        To:     general@xml.apache.org         
                    utris.com>                 cc:     jason@jdom.org, (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)
                                               Subject:     Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan,
and requirements            
                    07/11/2000 06:28 PM                                                  
                    Please respond to                                                    

>>    * 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?



In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message