On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:45 AM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM, ant elder <antel...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Are we talking only about extensions (bindings and implementations) ? >> > >> > I'm suggesting everything. >> > >> >> >> >> For other modules, I'd suggest we check case by case, as I have the >> >> same concerns expressed by Raymond on this thread. >> >> >> > >> > But what are those concerns? No one has ever given any technical reasons >> > for >> > keeping them separate that makes sense if we're not doing it >> > consistently. >> > >> >> Having the xml processors in a separate module would allow us execute >> the compatibility stuff for 2.x discussed in [1].... >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/2cez45rwmj43jxwa >> > > What specifically in there could we not do if the code was in a single > module? > > ...ant > > >
My concern with this change would be backward compatibility. I had hoped we could use different versions of "?-xml" to loaded different spec namespaces into a single consistent model. Have been trying to finish up some other things to haven't got to doing any of this in 2.x other than I think Luciano created separate assembly-xml and assembly-xml-osoa modules. Simon
