----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:41 PM Subject: Re: SAX classes in JAR wreaking havoc
> Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why do have the SAX classes in our CVS? I just spent two hours tracking > > down a 'loader constraint violation' which was the result of having the > > SAX classes in the xmlrpc JAR. The package compiles just fine without > > them if you have xerces in your ANT_HOME/lib. > > Oooh, that's a fun one. I've hit that too with Catalina. > > > If they need to be in the jar for embedded purposes can we please change > > the build so that we have a jar without the SAX classes? say xmlrpc.jar > > and xmlrpc-full.jar? > > I hate that -full crap -- let's do just one JAR. John, I assume > removing the interfaces bytecode would cause run-time problems if they > were not present separately? At the very least, we might want to > update them to a more recent version. We need a subset of the SAX 1 classes for a stand alone XML-RPC jar with MinML (the MinML distribution contains this subset). Note that moving to a later version of the SAX1 classes will cause deprecation warnings as the SAX 1 stuff has now been deprecated in favour of SAX2. At some point we might want to consider moving from SAX1 to SAX2 (and from MinML to MinML2). It buys us precisely nothing in terms of functionality but does not have any significant cost in terms of performance. John Wilson The Wilson Partnership http://www.wilson.co.uk
