Is there any harm to leaving it there? I have seen a lot of commons projects start creating these various "optional"/"extended" jars and think it is a pretty slippery slope to go down.. Part of why I turn to the Commons project is because the tools are relatively simple and don't require me to learn a ton about which jar's I need etc. I think we should either keep it or toss it, but not start an "optional" package. At least, not until we get 1.0 out. After all, how do you decide which configurations go in the main versus the optional package?
Eric > -----Original Message----- > From: J�rg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:00 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [configuration] DOM vs DOM4J > > > Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Monday, June 21, 2004 8:17 PM: > > > Is there a good reason to keep the configurations using DOM4J instead > > of their DOM based equivalent ? If there is no difference > > between the two > > I'm tempted to remove DOM4JConfiguration and > > HierarchicalDOM4JConfiguration (or to move them to a contrib > > directory), and then merge DOMConfiguration into XMLConfiguration and > > HierarchicalDOMJConfiguration into HierarchicalConfiguration. > > > > What do you think ? > > Taking Paul's comment into account, there seems not to be a real > sufficient solution. DOCConfiguration is quite nice for JDK >= > 1.4, since no additional dependency is generated. Therefore I > vote in first place for the DOMConfiguration, but it might be > good to have DOM4JConfiguration in e.g. > commons-configuration-optional around and the possibility to tell > the "core" to use this implementation. > > Comments? > > -- J�rg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
