Well, I'm not in love with the custom processing... I just fall
slightly on the not-XMLBeans side of the fence. I'm certainly open to
alternatives or discussion.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Granted 2m seems a bit hefty though...
--jason
On Oct 7, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Well for starters, there's neither an attributes.xml nor an
> attributes.xsd... :)
>
> But the answers I think are that when we first did it it was pretty
> simple and XMLBeans seemed kind of heavyweight, and there was an
> ongoing debate about whether we'd actually want to stick with XMLBeans
> for the other stuff anyway. Also, config.xml has to be loaded
> super-early in the boot process and I'm not sure that XMLBeans is that
> high in the class loader hierarchy presently. Since it's a couple of
> MB it might be nice if it wasn't strictly required in order to run
> anything at all.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 10/7/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyone know why we are not using xmlbeans to handle attributes.xml
>> processing (config.xml) ?
>>
>> --jason
>>
