I am also for replacing XPP with STAX. We did performance testing between XPP and STAX for our Java Solr client and found there is only a very small difference (XPP was about 3% faster).
Bill On 6/30/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote: > On 6/29/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How do you all feel about moving: >> XmlUpdateRequestHandler -> XppUpdateRequestHandler >> StaxUpdateRequestHandler -> XmlUpdateRequestHandler >> >> then deprecating XppUpdateRequestHandler? > > +1 > > I think we could remove the XppUpdateRequestHandler relatively quickly > to get rid of the XPP dependency. It's more of an implementation > detail and shouldn't be visible to most users. > I will go ahead and make this change. The XppUpdateRequestHandler will still be there if something is amiss. We should remove it (and the dependencies) before 1.3 ryan
