But another option would be to revert to a SAX parser and do two passes: one to read stuff into a token stream, a second to convert the XML tokens to Tapestry tokens.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 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]
