On 2 April 2012 22:45, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the bigger picture here is that resolving differences of this > kind requires time, and during the interim we need to be able to > release software anyway. I have no wish to maintain a forked copy of > either xerces or httpclient indefinitely, but right at the moment we > are not prepared or able to use the released versions of these > libraries. I hope that we can all agree that pragmatism has a value; > we're certainly not trying to step on people's toes, we're simply > trying to solve a problem.
One sure way to solve the problem is to use your own package namespace for any such imported source. That is definitely sufficient. Whether it is necessary is another matter, and is not easy to answer in general as "it depends". > Thanks, > Karl > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "what's the use-case for non-well-formed >> XML?' This thread is probably not the best place to delve further in >> that direction." >> >> Simple use case: parsing malformed RSS feeds. I agree, though, we're >> getting into the weeds here; I'd love to have this discussion >> elsewhere, but the point does stand that none of these patch decisions >> was done lightly. Hopefully the community can accept that. >> >> Karl >> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Karl, >>> >>> I'm exceedingly sorry here that the IPMC as a whole let you down by >>> not turning into these issues and dealing with them at the outset. >>> There's been a lot of sensitivity expressed lately to Apache projects >>> stepping on each other's toes. >>> >>> Personally, I have no objection to including mutant jars in a -deps >>> binary with a clear explanation of what they are, but I would like to >>> see some support for that view, because I'd could imagine some >>> objections based on recent email. >>> >>> In the longer term, if ManifoldCF really wants to include an "XML >>> parser with a difference", then it's certainly possible for you to >>> maintain and release a fork of Xerces under your own package names. I >>> agree with Sebb that you would be well advised to find some other way >>> around it. My personal reaction, in complete isolation from the >>> problem at hand, was 'really? what's the use-case for non-well-formed >>> XML?' This thread is probably not the best place to delve further in >>> that direction. >>> >>> --benson --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
