Re: [orbit-dev] XML Bundle Questions

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> org.apache.xerces
> - Currently this project has contents in HEAD as well as its v2_8_0
stream.
> I don't believe this is intentional and would remove the contents
from HEAD
> except that the contents are slightly different from the stream and
I
> didn't want to lose anything.

Thanks for noting. I've corrected. 



> - The EE is set to 1.2 and judging from the web
site
> (http://xerces.apache.org/xerces2-j/faq-general.html#faq-11) this
is good.
> I wonder if it will really run on Foundation 1.0 though? Note that
the API
> tools that the Equinox team is currently working on should help us
> determine the required EE for bundles.

Er, how bad is it for me to admit I don't know the
real difference between 
1.2 and Foundation 1.0?  :) 
In fact, I'm not even sure ... are you suggesting
it would be better to 
specify as Foundation 1.0? I do know, from mailing
lists, it does not 
run on 1.1! I'll look to see if I can find the references
if that would 
help answer the question. 


> org.w3c.dom
> - we've got 4 distinct package names inside this bundle: org.w3c.dom,
> org.xml.sax, org.apache.xmlcommons, javax.xml
> - should we consider spliting this into multiple bundles or is it
true that
> these 4 pieces commonly ship together?

These do always ship together, certainly as distributed
from the apace xerces 
project, so I think we should keep them together.
It is distributed by Xerces 
as the "xml-apis.jar". My guess is there's
some dependancies in there (e.g. sax 
depends on DOM?) 


> - if we ship a single bundle, the current name
is a little confusing to me.
> I have code and was looking to get SAX-related APIs to compile against
but
> didn't realize they were in this bundle. Perhaps a more dom/sax neutral
> name would be better? (javax.xml?)

I'm open to this suggestion. Perhaps it is simply
my historical perspective that 
made me tend towards the org.w3c.dom name ... it sure
is clear to me :) 
Plus, if it matters, this really is meant to represent
the org.w3c.dom specifications, 
not the JAXP specifications, which is what I associate
with javax.xml. While they 
are similar, and to some extent are converging ...
the latter is always a bit behind
and something of a subset of the former. 

I will ask the same questions on one xerces developer
lists ... to see if that 
community has any thoughts, preferences, or suggestions.


In general, it is an interesting problem, though,
how someone can find packages in bundles that 
don't reflect the exact name(s) of the packages. For
sure this should be part of our orbit.xml files
that someone is working on :) so that at least a text
search would hit something.