Eric Hodges wrote: > > > We build the source. We tried to use the jars, but we found ourselves > stepping in to source a lot to find out how to use things.
Having the code around to look into it and making part of your source are two very different things. While I understand the former, I don't understand the latter. And given the problem you're now facing I would advise you to reconsider this. > > We don't currently do it actually. But yes, that's how I'd do it. I'd > > have dom1/org/w3c/dom and dom2/org/w3c/dom and use one or the other in > > the relevant part of the build. > > Ah. See, to me, that's nightmarish. Ok, so we disagree on what is nightmarish. Although I agree it's not ideal I find that very easy to deal with (assuming the use of makefiles). > I don't want to double the complexity > of our build because of this. Not rehashing the complexity aspect of this, which clearly is subjective, I would, again, advise you to avoid this altogether by simply using the jars! > And anyway, it sounds like it just plain > won't work, regardless of how we build it. Well, I guarantee you it would work. Although I haven't done it for the full DOM, I've tried it in a very minimal version of it. It works! -- Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
