--- Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from the license issue, you might be
> interested in woodstox. I've
> found its about 33% faster than the RI.
>
> http://woodstox.codehuas.org
^^^^^^^^
codehaus
;-)
WRT Sun's implementation, keep in mind that while the
API file should be freely available, I don't know
what's licensing of the actual parser (codename
"Zephyr"). They need to be considered separately; and
the API was produced by BEA, so if Sun can ship it
(via JCP process), others should be able to. There's
really no way around the fact that API jar has to be
freely licensable, independent of which implementation
is to be used.
The situation with API jar licensing is unfortunate,
of course, but I'm not sure it will be solved by
switching to Sun's implementation. Sun's impl is bit
more robust than RI, though, based on StaxTest suite.
Not the most robust, but more. ;-D
(hardly surprising, since Sun's version is based on
Xerces low-level parsing)
-+ Tatu +-
>
> - Dan
>
> Panu H�llfors wrote:
>
> >Good morning!
> >
> >I'm returning to the jsr173_api.jar licensing issue
> >I noted about some time ago.
> >
> >We've found out that the jsr173_api.jar bundled
> with XMLBeans
> >is most likely ripped off from Bea's reference
> implementation
> >available at
> http://ftpna2.bea.com/pub/downloads/jsr173.jar.
> >However, Bea's distribution doesn't explicitely
> define
> >_any license at all_ for the api jar (which, at
> least here in
> >Finland, means that legally you have no right of
> any kind to
> >use it!).
> >
> >Thus, we're using Sun's implementation of JSR-173
> from their
> >Web services developer pack.
>
>(http://java.sun.com/webservices/downloads/webservicespack.html)
> >
> >Sun's implementation has proper license
> documentation which
> >allows you to use and redistribute jsr173_api.jar.
> In addition,
> >it seems to work with XMLBeans out of the box (at
> least at runtime,
> >didn't check code generation yet).
> >
> >
> >I'd recommend XMLBeans authors to switch over to
> Sun's
> >implementation in the official XMLBeans
> distribution, too.
> >
> >The seemingly minor license problem might not be a
> problem
> >for you as individual developers, but it may
> prevent other
> >parties from using XMLBeans. Companies just cannot
> take such
> >immaterial property right risks.
> >
> >From a rainy but happy Helsinki,
> >
> > Panu
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> (616) 971-2053
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> http://netzooid.com
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
