Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 14:17, John Wilson wrote: >> >> 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. > > So what does this mean now? The presence of the classes are causing > problems. I thrown together a JAR without those classes to get the > Turbine builds working again but this is a stopgap solution. Can we > package the ancillary classes in a second JAR and tell people to use > this if they need to? This is how it was originally wasn't it?
They're probably already available separately. I would be okay with removing them from the XML-RPC JAR, since they are causing problems. John, comments? FWIW, I would also be in favor of moving to MinML2.
