"Bovy, Stephen J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then why haven't those fixes been merged back into the Xerces tree ???
You are assuming there are fixes. It may just be that there are tweaks needed to new code which has appeared since the last time they did a port. That typically happens with ports of Xerces-C that are not maintained by the core contributors. There are other non-IBM platforms that are in the same situation. > Is IBM not being a good citizen in this matter ??? IBM has contributed a huge amount of code to open source, and has devoted major resources to maintaining and improving it. I think you are being very unfair. > Is IBM Purposefully and intentionally maintaining a "separate" "fork" of Xerces ????? Not that I know of. > The main reason I ask this , is because the official IBM toolkit is always way way behind the current Xerces version. That's probably because they feel their customers prefer stable binaries to the latest features. They also may not have enough resources to keep up with the speed at which Xerces-C evolves. > And on the Alpha works site there are no binary builds provided for z/OS, which is frustratingly stupid. That's because the core contributors are not zOS experts and don't have the resources (knowledge and hardware) to maintain those binaries. Since most open source projects provide no binaries, or a very small core set, users of Xerces-C are actually a bit spoiled in that regard. I think you really are being very unfair and a more than a bit rude. If a zOS port is really important to you, why don't you volunteer to maintain it and to provide binaries? Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
