Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't under a free license and is proprietary to either Sun and/or its partners? Is that worth the loss of Freedom? ... spending 15% of my spare cycles working on GNU Classpath, GNU Java Compiler. Pretty soon SUN will just be another irrelevant company :) GCC 3.0 will ship with GCJ and should be about JDK 1.1 compliant :) yeah baby! Having a problem with Project X doesn't mean scrapping the use of JAXP -- esp since two implementations of the parser and the impl of the transform engine is under the ASF license. Or should we just hard code the dependencies and not let people choose which parser to use? There is an OSS JAXP implementation at oje.sourceforge.net. I was just pointed to it today so :)... Kevin - -- Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596 Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -Abraham Lincoln -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt iD8DBQE6WnuYAwM6xb2dfE0RAh0qAJwJrmbF5XNmOCPiEHe4DuMxIYl6uQCgqK80 xNIhesvt+KFpDvSP5CRt8Wc= =UtsF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Ft. Bragg [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] colonel Peking BATF quiche fissionable jihad Legion of Doom North Korea Cocaine Nazi domestic disruption nuclear ammunition - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on 1/3/2001 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ug. Checked over the archives and didn't see this Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. JAXP itself is just a parser API that the parser implements. Nothing big about that. I wouldn't fret it. It is also under the JCP so that is supposedly somewhat OSS in that if you bitch loudly enough to enough people, you will get let in. Well maybe. It is not even close. Man... must be great being in the JCP and having all your intellectual property become SUNs :) This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX.. Actually, Tomcat 4.x is using Crimson as its parser by default. It is OSS. Maybe you should use that instead. http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-contrib/crimson/ Ah.. cool. good to see. p.s. Kevin, it is nice to see that you have finally stopping the PGP signing of your messages, that was so annoying, however now your .sig has about 10 lines of additional crap at the bottom. Maybe you could compress it a bit. :-) no... just toggled it for a second. :) Jon. If you used a *decent* e-mail client you wouldn't even see the PGP data :). Time to stop using a Microsoft product and upgrade to gnus :) Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Kevin - -- Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596 Intellectual property does not exist! Get over it! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt iD8DBQE6WnzbAwM6xb2dfE0RAlIkAKCy8JksWIPIrMZM2C2qoFfv5m/YDwCfWe1T dJSocbBlhquiU2vGXRjAArA= =kBVb -END PGP SIGNATURE- Mossad ammunition SDI security radar munitions PLO FSF explosion DES AK-47 Clinton Kennedy World Trade Center KGB - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
James Duncan Davidson wrote: On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't under a free license There are non-Sun implementations of Java, some of which are Free or Open. (I kinda suspect you knew that :-) The JAXP license is a legitimate pain-in-the-a** for those of us without special dispensations (which evidently includes projects that would like to reuse bits of Tomcat code, but can't) Or are you saying that it's ok to, for example: take some of the Tomcat web.xml/servlet.xml loader code, and reuse it in a non-Apache product that does a fancy GUI interface? The Apache license allows (encourages!) this, but the JAXP license does not, right? -cks - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
James Duncan Davidson wrote: What I'm saying is that you can redist the jaxp.jar file containing the classes of the implementation. That's what we need to be doing in the Apache tree anyway since we don't have a source redistribution license. IMHO, we should have a cleanroom re-implementation of this important API. If the current codebase in Apache doesn't meet this criteria, this problem should be addressed ASAP. For the life of me, I can see no reason why the JAXP JSR community wishes to remain a PITA in this matter. It should follow the lead of the servlet JSR. What's particularly puzzling about this to me is that the enlightened individual that took that JSR fully open source leads the JAXP JSR... - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
On 1/8/01 9:31 AM, "Sam Ruby" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, we should have a cleanroom re-implementation of this important API. If the current codebase in Apache doesn't meet this criteria, this problem should be addressed ASAP. The implementation in the current Xerces tree is a fine clean room impl of this. However do we really want to have more than one impl? Especially since these classes go directly into JDK 1.4? I would hate to see a code versioning problem around this from a technical standpoint. For the life of me, I can see no reason why the JAXP JSR community wishes to remain a PITA in this matter. It should follow the lead of the servlet JSR. What's particularly puzzling about this to me is that the enlightened individual that took that JSR fully open source leads the JAXP JSR... I don't get to call all the shots all the time. -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't under a free license and is proprietary to either Sun and/or its partners? Is that worth the loss of Freedom? Having a problem with Project X doesn't mean scrapping the use of JAXP -- esp since two implementations of the parser and the impl of the transform engine is under the ASF license. Or should we just hard code the dependencies and not let people choose which parser to use? -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Kevin Burton wrote: Ug. Checked over the archives and didn't see this Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX.. As pointed out by others, all current releases of Tomcat will build and run just fine with Xerces. The release manager for Tomcat chooses to include JAXP into the prepackaged binaries primarily due to size considerations. At the moment, the only Apache project I know of that hardcodes references to Crimson is xml-batik. Contrary to what others may say, JAXP1.1 is not completely open source. The Crimson and Xalan components are, but curiously the JAXP interfaces themselves are proprietary. Xerces has a version of these interfaces, but this is only because it got special dispensation to do so. This still needs to be fixed. IMHO parser plugability IS A GOOD THING. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Ug. Checked over the archives and didn't see this Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX.. Kevin -- Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596 The worse thing in life is to fall short! counter-intelligence Ortega kibo Panama [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] PLO fissionable $400 million in gold bullion Waco, Texas terrorist security KGB plutonium smuggle NSA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
-- :wq On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: on 1/3/2001 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ug. Checked over the archives and didn't see this Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of Freedom :(. JAXP itself is just a parser API that the parser implements. Nothing big about that. I wouldn't fret it. It is also under the JCP so that is supposedly somewhat OSS in that if you bitch loudly enough to enough people, you will get let in. Well maybe. This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX.. Actually, Tomcat 4.x is using Crimson as its parser by default. It is OSS. Maybe you should use that instead. http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-contrib/crimson/ The latest version of the parser is infact http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-crimson. It's been moved from the contrib area.. - Rajiv p.s. Kevin, it is nice to see that you have finally stopping the PGP signing of your messages, that was so annoying, however now your .sig has about 10 lines of additional crap at the bottom. Maybe you could compress it a bit. :-) -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
