It'll be in CVS if we come up with a reason to reimplement it... Eric
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:19 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [configuration] DOM vs DOM4J > > > Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:06 PM: > > > Jörg Schaible wrote: > > > >> Taking Paul's comment into account, there seems not to be a real > >> sufficient solution. DOCConfiguration is quite nice for JDK >= 1.4, > >> since no additional dependency is generated. Therefore I vote in > >> first place for the DOMConfiguration, but it might be good to have > >> DOM4JConfiguration in e.g. commons-configuration-optional around and > >> the possibility to tell the "core" to use this implementation. > >> > >> Comments? > > > > DOMConfiguration is even nice for JDK 1.3 since most server > > environnements under this version provide the standard XML > > APIs. I don't > > think [configuration] is performance critical enough to > > justify the use > > of an additional dependency, and there are other possible > > optimizations if a better implementation is really needed (for > > example the properties could be stored only once in the > > BaseConfiguration and the DOM parser could be dropped for a SAX > > parser). > > > > I tend to prefer a complete removal of the DOM4J classes to > > cut down the > > maintenance burden. > > Fine with me. > > -- Jörg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
