On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > Might I suggest that one of the files be named jaxp_parser.jar? Having two
> > jars with the same name *is* confusing, even though I understand why they
> > were split up.
Both files should be identical - why would you name them differently ?
> IMHO, that advice would need to go back to the folks who created JAXP. It
Since I'm somehow involved in that, I can answer to some of the questions.
> By the way, just to add to the strangeness of JAR file names:
>
> * Tomcat 4 uses JAXP/1.1 by default, so the parser name is actually
> "crimson.jar" instead of "parser.jar". But "jaxp.jar" is still
> separate (because it's just the API classes, not the implementation).
Same as servlet.jar is separated from tomcat.jar. Parser.jar was a
mistake that was fixed - it's too generic name ( xerces is also a parser
:-). The name of the jar implementing servets changes quite often too,
depending on the implementation ( parser.jar and crimson.jar have same
codebase, but different package names inside, plus crimson support for
sax1.1, etc. )
> * You can use Xerces instead of JAXP if you want, but to do that you
> need to remove both "jaxp.jar" and "crimson.jar" and replace them
> with "xerces.jar" that has the javax.xml APIs built in. Why?
> I dunno .. you'd have to ask the xerces team.
Similar with j2ee.jar that includes both servlet.jar and tomcat.jar, and I
think few other packages do the same.
AFAIK xerces and xalan ( in theory ) are planning to change this. When - I
don't know, it doesn't seem like a big priority ( since it works fine this
way ). That's the goal of xml-commons.
Costin
