So that's the switch from STaX to Woodstox. What features
necessitated the change from SAX to STaX (aside from the fact that the
resulting code is probably cleaner; I haven't checked :)? eg: we
already had doctype handling in 5.0, using SAX...
Robert
On Apr 20, 2009, at 4/2010:50 AM , Howard Lewis Ship 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
