xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Glavassevich <mrgla...@ca.ibm.com>
Subject RE: [POLL]: Dropping JDK 1.3 support for Xerces-J?
Date Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:58:21 GMT

Gary,

Gary Gregory <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote on 07/08/2010 02:02:27
PM:

> Gary Gregory
> Senior Software Engineer
> Seagull Software
> email: ggregory@seagullsoftware.com
> email: ggregory@apache.org
> www.seagullsoftware.com
>
>
> From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:mrglavas@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:33
> To: j-users@xerces.apache.org
> Cc: general@xml.apache.org; j-dev@xerces.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [POLL]: Dropping JDK 1.3 support for Xerces-J?
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> "Jacob Kjome" <hoju@visi.com> wrote on 07/08/2010 12:58:49 PM:
>
> > I have a library I develop (XMLC [1]) that depends on JDK1.3 and
> also depends
> > on Xerces.  That said, part of the reason of depending on JDK1.3 is
> > to stay in
> > line with the Xerces dependency on JDK1.3.  The other reason is
> thatJDK1.3 is
> > free and clear of any built-in XML APIs, which allows me to include
exactly
> > the JAXP library of my choice (xml-apis.jar) without worry of
compile-time
> > binding to odd invalid APIs included in 1.4 (such as some stuff
> meant for the
> > HTML2 API that got placed in the HTML1 API DOM package namespace).  But
if
> > Xerces decides to move to a later version of Java, then I will
> probably move
> > XMLC right along with it.
> >
> > That said, I would think that if Xerces were going to bother
> making a move at
> > all it would move to JDK1.5 rather than bother with 1.4.  Xerces 2.10
is
> > always there for 1.3 and 1.4 codebases, which should all be well into
> > maintenance mode meaning few, if any, library changes.
>
> It's often not a choice but a constraint of the environment the
> developer is working in, having to write a new application on top of
> a product stack which is stuck on one of these earlier JDK releases.
> JDK 1.4 isn't dead yet; still in service for some vendors, including
> Oracle/Sun if you're a business willing to pay for the support. Not
> aware of any vendors supporting JDK 1.3 anymore though.
>
> > Moving to 1.5 would
> > allow Xerces to take advantage of all the new language constructs added
in
> > 1.5, as well as APIs added in 1.5 (e.g., StringBuilder -vs-
StringBuffer).
>
> Right. We all talked about the benefits of moving up even higher to
> Java 5 and 6 before, but have been quite conservative about
> upgrading because of where we are in the food chain.
> This seems like some harsh handcuffs for Xerces to live with. If an
> app is stuck on Java 1.3, is it also evolving and keeping up with
> Xerces versions and new XML and XML Schema standards?

I think you missed my first point.

> As argued above, you can always use Xerces 2.10, forever. Why not lose
> the shakles? What about getting started on Xerces 3.0 with a 6
> requirement and maintain Xerces 2.x on Java 3 with critical bugs
> fixes only? And say ?Welcome to the 21st century J?

Sure, that's technically possible but I think it's too early to be jumping
directly up to 6. Not sure there are many ASF projects which would even
bundle a Java 6 only Xerces release today. Plus I can't think of anything
Xerces would even use that's Java 6 specific. java.util.ArrayDeque maybe?
but that's hardly a compelling reason to do it.

> Gary
>
>
> > So, +1 for changing JDK dependency in general, but I would prefer a
move
> > straight to JDK1.5+ skipping JDK1.4 support.  This also seems to be
> > what a lot
> > of Apache commons libraries are doing, so it's certainly not
unprecedented.
> >
> > [1] http://forge.ow2.org/projects/xmlc/
> >
> >
> > Jake

Thanks.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>
E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org
Mime
View raw message