xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane_Curc...@lotus.com
Subject Re: Common sub-project for Xalan/Xerces: discuss: standards-based files vs. common utils
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:35:39 GMT
Actually my most important point about standards-based files is at the end
of this email - sorry.
- Shane (please read on)

---- you  "Ted Leung" <twleung@sauria.com> wrote ----
> Well, it's one more .jar that someone has to remember to put
> into their classpath.
This is definitely an issue for end-users.  From the Xalan perspective, we
don't have too many problems because people can figure out they need the
XSLT procesor (xalan.jar) and an XML parser (xerces.jar) on the classpath -
those are pretty easy concepts to remember.  Plus we document it clearly.
But a third jar?  how do we explain to the non-technical end-user what this
is and why they need to remember it?

Note: this isn't a huge problem, but it is a consideration.  I just like to
remember that most of the people who use these tools don't know and
probably don't care how they work: they just want to use them to get their
own jobs done. -sc

> Is Xalan doing it's own Xerces build?
No: we periodically check in a xerces.jar from a recent Xerces distro; we
then document that you should use the same xerces.jar that you got with
your Xalan distro; if you use a different Xerces version or from CVS, that
you should be ready for integration issues.  This is definitely a
convenience issue for our end-users.  Note that we now have daily CVS
coverage from GUMP, so active developers who want to live on the edge can
find out if today's Xerces CVS plays nice with today's Xalan CVS. -sc

> We already have problems
> because Xerces breaks Xalan, or Xerces breaks Axis. Now I foresee
> that someone from Xalan will break ADK which will break Xerces
> which will break Axis.   Before you laugh,  ...
Oh, I'm not laughing at all.  But who is Axis? -sc

> In practice, the ADK is probably going to include the W3C DOM interfaces,
> the SAX2 interfaces, and the JAXP interfaces, so it's pretty unlikely
> they
> are going to change much
*Ah-ha!* The important point I promised!  I think it's very important to
discuss the ADK makeup in terms of two kinds of things that might go into
it: *standards-based* files, versus other *common Apache utils*
Note that the W3C DOM interfaces, SAX1/SAX2, and JAXP are all
*standards-based* files 'owned' by other standards groups, not by Apache or
any of our projects.  We shouldn't really be packaging these ourselves, in
an ideal world we'd simply grab pre-packaged bits from the standards bodies
(or Sun, for JAXP, etc.) and drop those in directly: they are 'standards'
after all.  But for both end-user and developer convenience, we need to
pacakge these ourselves.  We might as well do it in a common way for all of
xml.apache.org, hence creating an 'ADK'. -sc

We should discuss separately what *common Apache utils* might also go into
an ADK-like thing.  We own these files, so we might integrate them more
frequently, set guidelines on their updating and use, etc.  They may well
also go into an ADK, but I think there's an important difference between
how/when our common utils might go here versus how standards-based files

Hey - did that make sense to someone out there, or am I off in my own world
on this one?

- Shane

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