And what about donating the code to the dom4j project if you decide to
remove it?
Maarten
Eric Pugh wrote:
It'll be in CVS if we come up with a reason to reimplement it...
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: J�rg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:19 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [configuration] DOM vs DOM4J
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:06 PM:
J�rg Schaible wrote:
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?
DOMConfiguration is even nice for JDK 1.3 since most server
environnements under this version provide the standard XML
APIs. I don't
think [configuration] is performance critical enough to
justify the use
of an additional dependency, and there are other possible
optimizations if a better implementation is really needed (for
example the properties could be stored only once in the
BaseConfiguration and the DOM parser could be dropped for a SAX
parser).
I tend to prefer a complete removal of the DOM4J classes to
cut down the
maintenance burden.
Fine with me.
-- 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
