Gary, Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote on 07/08/2010 02:02:27 PM:
> Gary Gregory > Senior Software Engineer > Seagull Software > email: ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com > email: ggreg...@apache.org > www.seagullsoftware.com > > > From: Michael Glavassevich [mailto:mrgla...@ca.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 10:33 > To: j-users@xerces.apache.org > Cc: gene...@xml.apache.org; j-...@xerces.apache.org > Subject: Re: [POLL]: Dropping JDK 1.3 support for Xerces-J? > > Hi Jake, > > "Jacob Kjome" <h...@visi.com> wrote on 07/08/2010 12:58:49 PM: > > > I have a library I develop (XMLC [1]) that depends on JDK1.3 and > also depends > > on Xerces. That said, part of the reason of depending on JDK1.3 is > > to stay in > > line with the Xerces dependency on JDK1.3. The other reason is > thatJDK1.3 is > > free and clear of any built-in XML APIs, which allows me to include exactly > > the JAXP library of my choice (xml-apis.jar) without worry of compile-time > > binding to odd invalid APIs included in 1.4 (such as some stuff > meant for the > > HTML2 API that got placed in the HTML1 API DOM package namespace). But if > > Xerces decides to move to a later version of Java, then I will > probably move > > XMLC right along with it. > > > > That said, I would think that if Xerces were going to bother > making a move at > > all it would move to JDK1.5 rather than bother with 1.4. Xerces 2.10 is > > always there for 1.3 and 1.4 codebases, which should all be well into > > maintenance mode meaning few, if any, library changes. > > It's often not a choice but a constraint of the environment the > developer is working in, having to write a new application on top of > a product stack which is stuck on one of these earlier JDK releases. > JDK 1.4 isn't dead yet; still in service for some vendors, including > Oracle/Sun if you're a business willing to pay for the support. Not > aware of any vendors supporting JDK 1.3 anymore though. > > > Moving to 1.5 would > > allow Xerces to take advantage of all the new language constructs added in > > 1.5, as well as APIs added in 1.5 (e.g., StringBuilder -vs- StringBuffer). > > Right. We all talked about the benefits of moving up even higher to > Java 5 and 6 before, but have been quite conservative about > upgrading because of where we are in the food chain. > This seems like some harsh handcuffs for Xerces to live with. If an > app is stuck on Java 1.3, is it also evolving and keeping up with > Xerces versions and new XML and XML Schema standards? I think you missed my first point. > As argued above, you can always use Xerces 2.10, forever. Why not lose > the shakles? What about getting started on Xerces 3.0 with a 6 > requirement and maintain Xerces 2.x on Java 3 with critical bugs > fixes only? And say ?Welcome to the 21st century J? Sure, that's technically possible but I think it's too early to be jumping directly up to 6. Not sure there are many ASF projects which would even bundle a Java 6 only Xerces release today. Plus I can't think of anything Xerces would even use that's Java 6 specific. java.util.ArrayDeque maybe? but that's hardly a compelling reason to do it. > Gary > > > > So, +1 for changing JDK dependency in general, but I would prefer a move > > straight to JDK1.5+ skipping JDK1.4 support. This also seems to be > > what a lot > > of Apache commons libraries are doing, so it's certainly not unprecedented. > > > > [1] http://forge.ow2.org/projects/xmlc/ > > > > > > Jake Thanks. Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab E-mail: mrgla...@ca.ibm.com> E-mail: mrgla...@apache.org
