I agree, but without certain features of Woodstox, T5.1 would have lost necessary features. The STaX APIs don't cover a few critical cases ... I had to switch to the Woodstox APIs to handle a couple of things like decoding doctypes and handling external entities (if memory serves).
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Christian Köberl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ben Gidley wrote: >> >> I don't think using Stax will help. It is not woodstox that breaks app >> engine but the stax api itself. >> > I know - that's what I tried to say in my blog entry. > > But my concern was to use plain Stax instead of Woodstox just for the sake > of minimizing dependencies and using Java standards. I prefer to rely on > standards (if they're there). > > -- > Chris > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Woodstox-dependency-needed--tp2645025p2663210.html > Sent from the Tapestry Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator of Apache Tapestry Director of Open Source Technology at Formos --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
