----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Cumming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 18:08
Subject: Re: Changing include to include/xercesc - Summary and Vote
> "Gale, Gary (Factiva)" wrote:
> >
> > I vote +1 (and wish I had the time to try converting the build to an
> > automake driven environment).
>
> I tried it. I found some difficulties with the platform-conditional
> inclusion of some files and directories in the build. I was slowly
> getting there when I lost it all in a disk crash.
>
Ha-ha. That is what I expected. (I mean - "some difficulties")
Actually, the CVS maintaining problem - is just a kind of "lazy bastard"
(c) Erik Rydgren
I do not mind (think that all others also) to properly resolve the name
conflicts or avoid it in the future (for example use xerces and xalan
together).
But this should not be done spontaneously.
Before reorganizing the xerces package and update the CVS, many things
should be done:
- Changing code
- Building Xerces on all supported platfoms
- Retesting Xerces on all platforms
- Building samples on all platforms
- Retesting/running samples on all platforms
- Making a sample that uses Xerces & Xalan (for example). Making sure that
there are no conflicts
- Releasing Xerces files with new structure (still not updating CVS)
- Wait the users callback
- Fix bugs and missed problems
-- Meanwhile continue working on Xerces (Schema, ...)
- And then, announce the new version and update CVS
So, there are things to think about.
Peter A. Volchek
Software Engineer
Metis International, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
