On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm talking about the DOM and SAX APIs. There are literally no XML APIs in > compact1. It's all the low level basics, really. I mean, compact1 gives you > more than J2ME does I think (which they're probably trying to phase out and > replace with a unified modular JDK), but it's not enough for our core > functionality. Nobody wants to write an XML parser by hand. ;) > So we could use Jackson, but that adds a dependency. Or... support property files. Gary > > > On 22 July 2014 17:00, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The XML classes we use are from Jackson not JAXB, so does it matter that >> compact 1 does not include XML? >> >> Gary >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Matt Sicker >> Date:07/22/2014 17:37 (GMT-05:00) >> To: Log4J Developers List >> Subject: Should log4j-core be runnable using only the compact2 JDK1.8 >> profile? >> >> The compact2 profile leaves out a bunch of packages the JDK would >> normally include. I think it's even a subset of the Android classes >> available. Making it so log4j-core runs with just the compact2 profile >> would really mean it's all core, but I'm not sure which compact profile >> would be best to target. Things like JNDI, JDBC, Swing, AWT, etc., aren't >> included in the compact2 profile. >> >> I would have suggested compact1, but that doesn't even include any XML >> classes, so that's not really viable. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
