Re: [orbit-dev] Another exception to normal naming scheme: org.apache.xe

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nays: 1  Yays: 0

I'll remove my proposed name-changed
bundle from the build until resolved, and/or I or someone has the time
to do the work to create three seperate
bundles (along with the investigative work). 

> Are you saying that the Xerces
project actually change 
> them and that people are using their prototype versions instead of
the 
> standard ones? If so, do we really want to maintain such prototypes
in 
> Orbit?

They claim "minor bug fixes"
... nothing prototypical. But, we should investiate 
throughly before we present something,
for example, as "javax.xml 1.3" if it does 
the xerces version does not match exactly
what others would call "javax.xml 1.3". 

Recall, our goal in WTP (perhaps there's
others, in other projects) was simply to 
"provide xerces" because it
has some stuff in it that is not in the JRE's, not even 
the 1.5 JRE's. (mostly to do with schema
validation, in our case). 


> My suggestion (based on my belief
that they are there for backward 
> compatibility) would be to create three different distributions. 
> org.xml.sax, org.w3c.dom, and javax.xml and add dependencies between
> them as needed. If possible, describe that the packages they export
are 
> in many (most) cases not needed at all.

Ok, will wait until there's time and
priority to implement this desired way. 

Hopefully once I dive into it, it'll
all make sense and be easy to do and document. 

May need to ask about export and import
packages ... my "trial and error" 
approach didn't get past PDE warnings/errors.

Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/16/2007 10:37 AM

Please respond to
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [orbit-dev] Another exception to normal        naming        scheme:        org.apache.xerces.xml.apis?

>
> case in point, the versions in various JRE's, even in 1.4, are 
> slightly different.
> And, very different in 1.3. I suspect they are the same in 1.5, but
> still subject
> to be "out of date" with the what ever is used by the latest
and 
> greatest Xerces implementation.
>
I've always looked at these API's as backward compatibility stuff, never
needed when you are at 1.5 or later. AFAIK, Xerces is not the only 
implementation. Are you saying that the Xerces project actually change
them and that people are using their prototype versions instead of the
standard ones? If so, do we really want to maintain such prototypes in
Orbit?


> > Just out of curiosity, who needs these interfaces separately
today?
>
> You mean in Eclipse? No one _needs_ it, AFAIK ... some just thought
it 
> a good idea to be a bit smaller
> if someone was only using a one of the interfaces (if I recall right,
> though, javax.xml and org.sax both depend
> on org.w3c.dom, so in practice would never save too too much  ..
and, 
> as it is, is only 200K now. (Which is
> why I am not too motiviated to do the investigation on wha and how
> different from the originals).
>
> So ... did you have an alternative name that would be better than
> org.apache.xerces.xml.apis?
>
My suggestion (based on my belief that they are there for backward 
compatibility) would be to create three different distributions. 
org.xml.sax, org.w3c.dom, and javax.xml and add dependencies between 
them as needed. If possible, describe that the packages they export are
in many (most) cases not needed at all.

- thomas

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