Raul Benito wrote:
I have something implemented for SAX as you can see bugzilla entry
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32657 .
And I have take a look for JSR105, but i think the tree API is not
100% applicable to
for example one pass implementations.
In this cases, there shou
I have something implemented for SAX as you can see bugzilla entry
http://issues.eu.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32657 .
And I have take a look for JSR105, but i think the tree API is not
100% applicable to
for example one pass implementations.
In this cases, there should be a way in the ve
Raul Benito wrote:
Also, +1 for me. I think is a good plan.
To have a bugfix CVS branch with 1.x API and JSR105.
And 2.x JSR105 only branch.
Really good.
Regarding the 1,3 version. I was thinking of adding stax/sax API but
perhaps it is better to concentrate in JSR105.
Do you have any of th
Also, +1 for me. I think is a good plan.
To have a bugfix CVS branch with 1.x API and JSR105.
And 2.x JSR105 only branch.
Really good.
Regarding the 1,3 version. I was thinking of adding stax/sax API but
perhaps it is better to concentrate in JSR105.
Regards,
On 7/21/05, Davanum Srinivas <[EM
Awesome. Am all for it. +1 to 1.4 release with JSR 105 support.
-- dims
On 7/21/05, Sean Mullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm happy to announce that we're (IBM & Sun) finally ready to contribute
> the JSR 105 [1] (Java XML DSig) implementation back to Apache. As you
> might know the JSR 105 re
On 7/21/05, Sean Mullan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phase 2 would be a longer-term release and would consist of removing
> redundant code and APIs and generally making a cleaner fit beneath the
> JSR 105 APIs. This means that API compatibility would be broken so it
> would have to be a 2.0 release
