Re: [orbit-dev] XML Bundle Questions

[Simon Kaegi <Simon_Kaegi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I can think of a few libraries that use SAX stand-alone (or with
java.xml.parser) without needing the w3c dom.

As a result, I'd prefer not using w3c dom as the top level aggregator
bundle name and instead I think we should consider:
1) splitting it into three separate bundles (e.g. org.sax, org.w3c.dom,
javax.xml)
2) using javax.xml and packaging and versioning according to the JAXP spec.

Either packaging would made sense to me.
-Simon

orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/22/2007 04:33:47 PM:

>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> orbit-dev mailing list
> orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev