[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And hearty congratulations to the JAXP 1.1 team, which actually won first
> place in the competition. 8-}
Was this for the API spec or the reference implementation (RI)?
>
> I keep thinking if only they had been using Xalan-J 2.x what would have
> happened...
I thought the JAXP 1.1 RI release on java.sun.com/xml does use Xalan-J
2.x, but maybe I'm confusing it with the latest version of the code that
is going into JDK 1.4 and J2EE 1.3. Costin would know or I could check
for myself... OK, the MANIFEST.MF says it's Xalan version 1.3p.
So I guess they were comparing the JAXP 1.1 RI.
Incidently, the JAXP 1.1 RI at java.sun.com has a potentially serious
bug in some of the javax.parsers.* classes. I was lobbying to get Sun
to release an official JAXP 1.1.1 RI unbundled bugfix release, but it
doesn't look like that will happen. The code that goes into the JDK 1.4
and J2EE products is more current than the unbundled release. And of
course, the code that is in the various Apache CVS repositories is the
most current of all. Unfortunately, it it still needs to be packaged
neatly together.
-Edwin (unsure of what the subjective criteria was for comparison)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
