As I mentioned in the past people: Namespaces, namespaces, namespaces!
Those purists unwilling to accept my macro solution better asks themselves
what's the
worse of two evils macros or code that can't interoperate?? One way or another
the
namespace issue must be addressed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/20/2001 12:03:22 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Sal Mangano/SIAC)
Subject: QName conflict with Xalan-C++
Xerces has defined a class called QName. Xalan-C++ has a class of the same
name and there is now a conflict with building Xalan using the latest
Xerces.
Obviously, without namespaces, we're going to continue to have collisions
like this, if we don't have a policy for naming such classes.
I mentioned in the email about the conflict with StringTokenizer that we
have taken to using "Xalan" as a prefix for such classes. I urge the
Xerces developer to consider doing something like this as well. The
overhead of fixing Xalan to work around this conflict is not insignificant,
and I'd like to avoid it in the future. This will also help
interoperability with other XML application as well.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
