[Sax-devel] Re: URGENT: SAX and JSR 206 (JAXP 1.3)
Brought to you by:
dmegginson
From: Norman W. <nd...@nw...> - 2004-01-27 20:19:12
|
Almost two weeks ago, I sent the plea below to the sax-devel list. I don't know how to interpret the total silence of the SAX developer community. Help, please. / Norman Walsh <nd...@nw...> was heard to say: | Several months ago (The list archive[1], as identified by List-Post: | seems to be down so I can't point to the message), Jeff Suttor | started a thread on this list about changes to SAX that JAXP needs and | that need to be "final" before JAXP ships. | | The consensus on the list seemed to be that it was (a) inappropriate | for JAXP to make changes to SAX and (b) unnecessary for the features | we need. Several alternatives were suggested, among them the existing | SAX2 Extensions classes and more generally the extension mechanism. | | As one of the spec leads for JSR 206, I want very much to participate | as a good "net citizen" in the development and deployment of SAX. I | certainly want to avoid any impression that we're somehow trying to | make inappropriate changes. We aren't. | | However, we have hard deadlines and products that have to ship. I see | a very nasty problem looming on the horizon and I am desperately | seeking your aid in resolving it. | | The problem in a nutshell is that JAXP needs to expose some features | of the infoset (for example, the XML version information from the XML | declaration) that aren't available in standard SAX. | | We initially offered to provide patches to SAX to support access to | the information we need. Those were rejected for the reasons I | mentioned above. Fair enough. | | Two alternatives seem to exist: | | 1. Use the existing "SAX2 Extensions" to get access to this | information. I think that's a fine answer. But there's a nasty | procedural problem we need to overcome. The SAX2 Extensions library is | currently labeled[2] "1.1beta1". I don't believe I'm going to be able | to get JAXP through the JCP process with a normative reference to a | standard that's labelled "beta". | | 2. We could use the existing extension framework to write our own | extensions. But I fear that we'd naturally wind up with something that | was effectively the same as the existing SAX2 Extensions. That seems | like both a waste of effort and an unnecessary proliferation of | classes for developers. | | If the SAX developer community feels that it has achieved enough | experience with the extensions to label them "1.1", removing the | "beta" moniker, I think (I am speaking only for myself in this | message) that would resolve the problem. | | If that isn't something that can practically be achieved in the | timeframe available, I will be desperate for some other solution. | | Your advice is most sincerely solicited. | | Be seeing you, | norm | | [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=sax-devel | [2] http://sax.sourceforge.net/?selected=ext | | -- | Norman Walsh <nd...@nw...> | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back | http://nwalsh.com/ | in. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <nd...@nw...> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler. |