Hi all,
working on dh_java i encountered this:
Duplicate library path: org/w3c/dom in both lib-dom-java and
lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!
In other words, the org.w3c.dom classes are given in three packages...
They probably have some version differences, but it seem not correct that
this
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:25:09PM +0100, Toby Speight wrote:
AIUI, the packages in question simply bundle W3C's interfaces[1]
(unchanged - W3C's licence may require this)
I was curious about this, and I would like to ask if there is any
consensus on how this affects free software. For
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
It is fine to split packages into the official API classes, and
supporting classes. However, it is not fine to say that there can
be only one official API classes
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 21:14, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
It is fine to split packages into the official API classes, and
supporting classes. However, it is not fine to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
While this does allow modification of the software, it effectively
says that when you modify it, you must break the API. This seems
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
But if they are different implementations they should not use the
same namespace... (see below)
But they implement the same interface (DOM in this case) and the XML for
Java standard says that the DOM interface classes have to
0 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
0 Egon Willighagen URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Egon) wrote:
Egon working on dh_java i encountered this:
Egon
Egon Duplicate library path: org/w3c/dom in both lib-dom-java and
Egon lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!
Egon
Egon In other words, the org.w3c.dom classes
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 11:16, Stefan Gybas wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
But if they are different implementations they should not use the
same namespace... (see below)
But they implement the same interface (DOM in this case) and the XML for
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 12:19, Toby Speight wrote:
0 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
0 Egon Willighagen URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Egon) wrote:
Egon working on dh_java i encountered this:
Egon
Egon Duplicate library path: org/w3c/dom in both lib-dom-java and
Egon
* Egon Willighagen
| Surely then the dependency will be on ( lib-dom-java | lib-openxml-java
| | libxerces-java ), since having any of those will satisfy the runtime?
|
| This will indeed be the outcome of dh_java...
A virtual package might be appropriate here - maybe also making a
standard
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
Surely then the dependency will be on ( lib-dom-java | lib-openxml-java
| libxerces-java ), since having any of those will satisfy the runtime?
This will indeed be the outcome of dh_java...
I don't think this will work.
0 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
0 Egon Willighagen URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Egon) wrote:
Egon Stefan argued that interface and implementation should not be
Egon seperated:
Egon
Egon The classes for interfaces might be identical for all
Egon containers but at
Egonleast the exception
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
For interfaces, it may be ok to require only one
instance (even that is arguable), but for the classes, it is not
fair to allow only one implementation.
Argh, I just deleted the mail showing who suggested this, but I really
like the idea of using
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:25:09PM +0100, Toby Speight wrote:
AIUI, the packages in question simply bundle W3C's interfaces[1]
(unchanged - W3C's licence may require this)
I was curious about this, and I would like to ask if there is any
consensus on how this affects free software. For
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
But it might indeed be good to place the interface classes in a seperate
jar/package... this would enforce that the implementation *does* implement
the actual interface, and not some look-a-like...
I may have misunderstood what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
I was curious about this, and I would like to ask if there is any
consensus on how this affects free software. For example, the
copyright notice at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/copyright-notice.html
says
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
But it might indeed be good to place the interface classes in a
seperate jar/package... this would enforce that the implementation *does*
implement the actual interface,
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
While this does allow modification of the software, it effectively
says that when you modify it, you must break the API. This seems
like an onerous requirement.
Modifying it will
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 21:14, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
It is fine to split packages into the official API classes, and
supporting classes. However, it is not fine to say
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:03:48PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pimlott) writes:
While this does allow modification of the software, it effectively
says that when you modify it, you must break the API. This seems
like
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:31:17PM -0600, Eric Schwartz wrote:
No, no, I mean what they seem to be saying is that you cannot modify the
classes that define the API to either extend or contract the scope of the
API. My interpretation of what they're saying is thus:
Anything that currently
21 matches
Mail list logo
