On 10/12/09 15:10, Nick Kew wrote: > > On 12 Oct 2009, at 10:09, Seema Alevoor wrote: > >> I am planning to integrate the latest version of Xerces-C++ (3.0.1) and >> Xalan-C++ (1.10) into SFW. > > Do we have any components built on Xerces/Xalan C++? It's a while
Not right now. But Sun Web Server 7, which I plan to integrate later, requires these components. > since I've built anything on them (I prefer libxml2/libxslt), but my > recollection is of Xerces upgrades NOT being drop-in replacements > for anything. In which case, any dependencies need to be > thoroughly tested with any proposed update. > >> http://xml.apache.org/xalan-c/whatsnew.html#xml4c says Xalan-C++ 1.10 >> is compatible with Xerces-C++ 2.7 and nothing higher. >> >> http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/releases_plan.html page says >> "Further releases in the 2.x.y line are currently not anticipated". So, >> it is better to go with the 3.x version. >> >> There's no definitive release plans for Xalan. >> In this thread http://www.nabble.com/XML-Xerces-Xalan-td22637253.html , >> which discusses about the same issue, David (I suppose he maintains >> the project) >> recommended to use the trunk version with Xerces-C 3.x. > > I guess the somewhat-conflicting advice is aimed at end-users who want > particular versions of Xerces OR Xalan rather than both. > >> So, should I go with >> >> 1. Xalan 1.10 and Xerces 2.x ? or > > What would be the case for Xerces-3? >> 2. Xalan 1.10 + apply the trunk >> changes (changes are huge) as patches and Xerces 3.x ? or > > Have you tried that, to get a feel for whether the changes will apply > cleanly? If not, my feeling would be not to embark on that unless > we can budget substantial time-and-effort. No, just listed it as one of the options. I too think it wouldn't be so straight forward. >> 3. Xalan 1.10 and Xerces 3.x and handle any issues not exposed during >> the testing, as bugs and fix them in future snv builds ? or >> 4. create the source tar using the trunk files (as of today) and >> Xerces 3.x ? or >> 4. any other options ? > > One more option: Xalan 1.10 + Xerces 2.x + (separate) Xerces 3. You mean provide 2 sets of xalan - one built with xerces 2.x and another one built with 3.x or have both xerces 2.x and xerces 3.x but build xalan with only one of them ? > Bear in mind that since Xerces-2 --> Xerces-3 breaks API-compatibility, > it'll also break users applications built on Xerces-2. We can't just > abandon > Xerces-2, regardless of whether we offer Xerces-3. Agreed. Thanks, Seema.
