On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 8:32 PM Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This whole discussion started _because_ there a few places in Commons we > want to use this. And Commons felt like the right place as opposed to > Xerces which is a parser implementation. Stuffing this in Xerces carries > more risk because: (1) xerces is barely active and (2) like with log4j, > some people are still confused about the separation between API and > implementation. All of this is why I am backing Piotr's effort for putting > this in a new Commons XML component. So first, by putting it in Xerces I mean putting it in the Apache Xerces project, not making it part of the xerces jar. There might be some confusion about that. You certainly shouldn't have to depend on Xerces to pull this into your classpath. As to xerces being barely active, yes, this is a risk, and one I'm trying to do something about. However, I don't think it's noticeably different than commons in that respect. Both currently have exactly one active developer. The primary difference I see between them is that commons is less rigorous about code review and multiple approvals than Xerces is so changes can be made by that one developer without nagging a reviewer. Neither of these projects is what I would call healthy, which is why I suspect it might be the better choice to simply publish this library and keep it out of Apache entirely. Apache only matters when there's an active community ready to work together on a project. It's not a good fit for one-off, throw it over the wall projects. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
