Great. In this case, Andrew, can you please create a new enhnacement request at
http://bugzilla.exolab.org, and add myself to the CC list. It would be
great of you could copy most of this conversation to the bug report as well,
for completeness sake.
Thanks
Werner
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:07:13 -0600, Keith Visco wrote:
>
>Hey Andrew,
>
>I think it's a good idea, especially since more and more people don't
>want to include the entire Xerces jar just to get the serialization
>support required from Castor. I've been contemplating that for a long
>time now, just never had the time to tackle it. It should be pretty
>straight forward since the Castor Marshaller works with ContentHandler
>and DocumentHandler primarily and only a very few lines of code actually
>deal with the Serializer directly. The only thing the Serializer
>abstraction needs to do is provide a way to set a few properties, such
>as indentation (pretty printing), omiting the XML declaration at the
>top, etc, and then returning a SAX ContentHandler or DocumentHandler
>that Castor can marshal to, but I think you probably knew all that already.
>
>One thing that would be good also is if the Serializer can return a
>LexicalHandler as well (it could be the same class that implements the
>ContentHandler) for allowing us to Serialize CDATA sections and perhaps
>even comments.
>
>We can then simply move the current code found in Configuration to a
>Xerces specific implementation of the Castor Serializer (or whatever it
>ends up being called) interface.
>
>
>If you tackle this soon you'll just need to coordinate with Werner as
>he's planning on doing a 0.9.6 release soon, so I think we need to wait
>until after that release as to not introduce any last minute issues.
>
>In any case, +1 from me.
>
>--Keith
>
>
>
>Andrew Fawcett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently the Configuration class allows the developer to provide an
>> alternative serializer so long as its based on the Xerces Serializer
>> interface. Since we at CODA are try to remove Xerces from our products
>> and use the default JVM parser and serializer, having Castor locked into
>> Xerces this way is kind of fly in the ointment.
>>
>> I was wondering what peoples thoughts where on abstracting Castor'
>> serializer requirements into its own Serializer interface. The existing
>> configuration property would then do a better job of allowing developers
>> to then provide truly any serialiser they want. Of course default
>> behaviour would be as it is now. So Castor would ship with a default
>> implementation this new interface that works with Xerces. Thoughts?
>> Anybody have any objections if I start to look into this within the next
>> few weeks?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andrew Fawcett
>> "The Mad Brit"
>>
>>
>>
>> The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
>> privileged. It may not be disclosed to, or used by, anyone other than the
addressee. If you receive this message in error, please advise us immediately.
Internet emails are not necessarily secure. CODA does not accept
responsibility for changes to any email which occur after the email has been
sent. Attachments to this email may contain software viruses, which could
damage your systems. CODA has checked the attachments for viruses before
sending, but you should virus-check them before opening.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
>> unsubscribe castor-dev
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
> unsubscribe castor-dev
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
