On Tuesday 07 September 2010 1:40:15 pm Benson Margulies wrote: > Well, some people might like it if you addressed the problem addressed > by the performance work before we move on, but some people might be > disappointed .
I did. Committed this morning. :-) Dan > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Sunday 05 September 2010 8:45:30 am Benson Margulies wrote: > >> I see some recent bug reports and even a couple of patches on XmlSchema. > >> > >> There's the 1.4 branch where we're maintaining the classic code line: > >> Java 1.4, lots of unfinished hanging apis, etc. > >> > >> There's the trunk, where I produced a first pass at a 2.0. I think it > >> could be a reasonable forward path, but then again, I'm the author. > >> > >> I posed a question on the Xerces list about the relationship of > >> XmlSchema and Xerces. What I learned is that the Xerces community has > >> no great interest in a 'construction' API for W3C XML Schema, as > >> opposed to traversal and validation. In part, this is due to the > >> existence of a code base at Eclipse. > >> > >> I have never found the time to go check out the Eclipse alternative. > >> > >> Anyway, we can just keep on as we are, making small adjustments to the > >> 1.4 branch as we go, but I wondered if anyone else has a thought? > > > > Well, I'd like to see 1.4.7 released with the latest sets of fixes and > > then pretty much call it done for 1.4.x and just move onto 2.0. I hate > > having to deal with the java 1.4 syntaxes and such. > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > dk...@apache.org > > http://dankulp.com/blog -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://dankulp.com/blog
