On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Edwin Goei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I agree, I'd argue to not use xml-apis.jar. For one > thing, it may make it more difficult to debug problems b/c a failure > may occur b/c of code in a particular version of xml-apis.jar or in > the implementation jar file.
This is why I asked for a released version of that JAR. That way we could always say Ant release X.Y contains xml-apis.jar version U.V. If there is no released version, I'd probably veto adding an arbitrary snapshot to Ant distributions. > For example, Xerces plans to implement drafts of DOM L3 so they may > need a version of xml-apis.jar that contains those classes. Break that JAR into several JARs? > For crimson, here is the way I think it should work... There should > be only a single jar file: crimson.jar that contains everything: > both implementation and API classes. I've done so for Ant's CVS version, that is what made Stephane start the thread 8-) - prior to that we had Crimson 1.1.1 and the corresponding jaxp.jar. Stephane wants to add xml-apis.jar to get the transformation part of JAXP as well (the interfaces only, so that we can compile the optional parts of Ant that depend on TraX). > I noticed that Ant uses an older version of crimson that has > jaxp.jar. This has been the latest release of crimson when Ant 1.4 has been released and I think Conor simply missed the 1.1.3 release of Crimson. Ant's CVS has been updated. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
