On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Are we talking only about extensions (bindings and implementations) ? > >> > > >> > I'm suggesting everything. > >> > > >> >> > >> >> For other modules, I'd suggest we check case by case, as I have the > >> >> same concerns expressed by Raymond on this thread. > >> >> > >> > > >> > But what are those concerns? No one has ever given any technical > reasons > >> > for > >> > keeping them separate that makes sense if we're not doing it > >> > consistently. > >> > > >> > >> Having the xml processors in a separate module would allow us execute > >> the compatibility stuff for 2.x discussed in [1].... > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/2cez45rwmj43jxwa > >> > > > > What specifically in there could we not do if the code was in a single > > module? > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > My concern with this change would be backward compatibility. I had > hoped we could use different versions of "?-xml" to loaded different > spec namespaces into a single consistent model. Have been trying to > finish up some other things to haven't got to doing any of this in 2.x > other than I think Luciano created separate assembly-xml and > assembly-xml-osoa modules. > > Simon > Ok and thats the same as what Luciano just mentioned in another post to this thread. So...if we had a way to enable/disable support for either namespace independent of pulling modules in/out of the classpath would that address this concern and then we would be ok to merge these modules? ...ant
