In Xerces, we will rename the StringTokenizer class to XMLStringTokenizer to solve the conflict problem with Xalan.
Regards,
Khaled
James Berry wrote:
Thanks David. I guess, though, that if I could ask for anything I'd rather
have Xerces 1.5 be compatible with Xalan basically out of the box,
especially if there are no other issues anticipated between Xalan and Xerces
1.5. This would certainly make the life easier for those working with both
Xerces 1.5 and Xalan.Does anybody know of other issues, given the Xerces 1.5 feature set and
changes, that will prevent compatibility with the current Xalan?Thoughts Tinny?
-jdb
On 6/10/01 6:44 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:>
> We're not building Xalan against Xerces-C 1.5 yet, since we'll do our next
> release with 1.4. When we move up to Xerces-C, we can rename our class, I
> suppose.
>
> A while back, we adopted the policy of preceeding all of our new class
> names with Xalan. The Xerces team should consider doing the same thing, so
> we can avoid more conflicts -- especially with common names like
> StringTokenizer.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> James Berry
> <jberry@critica To: Xerces C Dev
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> lpath.com> cc: (bcc: David N
> Bertoni/CAM/Lotus)
> Subject: Xerces-C 1.5 & Xalan-C
> StringTokenizer symbols conflict
> 06/10/2001
> 08:38 PM
> Please respond
> to xerces-c-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> In trying half-heartedly to link the Xerces-C 1.5 candidate up with the
> current Xalan-C TOT, I get a symbol conflict: they each use a similar
> StringTokenizer class.
>
> Does anybody have a plan for this? Since Xerces is coming late to the party
> maybe a change should be made there before 1.5?
>
> Thoughts? Or is somebody way past me on this one?
>
> -jdb---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
