Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-batik-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61437 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2005 01:47:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Feb 2005 01:47:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 88417 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2005 01:47:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-batik-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 88404 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2005 01:47:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: batik-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list batik-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 88391 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2005 01:47:12 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of Thomas.DeWeese@kodak.com designates 192.232.121.200 as permitted sender) Received: from smtp1.kodak.com (HELO smtp1.kodak.com) (192.232.121.200) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:47:11 -0800 Received: from roc-us-e1000-111.kodak.com (roc-us-e1000-111.kodak.com [192.232.121.191]) by smtp1.kodak.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with SMTP id j1L1l8Z22531 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:47:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from (165.170.13.39) by roc-us-e1000-111.kodak.com via smtp id 08ad_13290568_83ac_11d9_9bc7_0002b3efa0be; Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:58:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <42193D9C.7060903@Kodak.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:47:08 -0500 From: Thomas DeWeese Organization: Eastman Kodak Company User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: batik-dev@xml.apache.org Subject: Re: DOM 3 References: <20050219003245.GA12529@port.mcc.id.au> <4218C7A1.9010009@Kodak.com> <20050221001829.GA22163@port.mcc.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20050221001829.GA22163@port.mcc.id.au> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Cameron McCormack wrote: > Thomas DeWeese: > >> There is one other issue which is that I would like to put >>out a 1.5.2 before making such a large change (especially if it >>is going to make things difficult for users on JDK 1.5 or less). >>One option would be to fork the code base which would allow this >>work to go in now and still allow for 1.5.2 (and more if needed). >>At the very least we should lay down a CVS tag before this work >>is checked in. > > Ok. How about I make a branch for this significant change stuff. > Should I put any new SVG 1.2 code (things that require more than just > adding a new dom.svg12 and bridge.svg12 class) in there too? Yes, I would think so (doesn't a lot of that stuff need/want some of the DOM 3 stuff). > I'm nearly finished the sXBL code, so that could go in there > as well. Also very cool. You have been busy. >> So what to do? The best thing I could come up with is a >>"shadow" copy of the DOM3 interfaces. There would be two copies of >>this one that extended DOM3 one that extended DOM2. > > Would you really need the one that extended the DOM 3 interfaces? If > you just extend whatever DOM interface is available, to add the DOM 3 > methods, it shouldn't matter that under JDK 1.5 the DOM 3 methods appear > again on the extended interfaces. This is mostly true, except that I presume DOM 3 adds some new classes and for things to work right they need to subclass the DOM3 class in the DOM 3 shadow, and nothing in the DOM 2 shadow. I suppose if we really wanted to we might be able to include those interfaces (well really all of DOM 3 xml-apis, but only the new classes would "show through" because the others would be hidden by the JDK classes - I don't know for sure if that would work but I think it would...). >>>[...DOM 3 methods in version "1.1" documents...] > >> I tend to agree. This does raise the issue of if we do the above >>we are only "1.2 compliant" if they use a DOM3 xml-apis. > > Yeah, it won't be strictly DOM 3 compliant when compiling on JDK < 1.5. > It seems a reasonable tradeoff for not having to messing with > bootclasspaths. We will need a FAQ but I agree that it is probably the best that can be accomplished. > Also, I was writing the other night support for the mouse wheel event of > SVG 1.2, but the AWT MouseWheelEvent is only supported in JDK >= 1.4. > What do you think the strategy for including this should be? Break out > the MouseWheelEvent specific code into a helper class and compile this > in conditionally with some trickery in Ant? FOP has a code structure of src/java, src/java-1.4, so they can multiple versions of the same class for different JDK builds. For a case like this it would probably be best to move most of the code up into a baseclass and then try and have only one or two methods that are split across JDK versions (like addGVTListener, in the 1.3 version it would just create the baseclass Listener, in the 1.4 it would create a subclass of the baseclass Listener which also handled mouse wheel events - this is just off the top of my head as an example I haven't looked at the code enough to know if this is a complete solution). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org