On Monday, December 19, 2011 10:42:23 AM Jim Ma wrote:
> Okay. Then we should keep it as it was. I just saw these common classes to
> handle the same thing in different places : jaxb-xjc.jar , Sun's JDK,
> xml-resolver.jar. Looks like current way is the better option.
Yea. I think so. The on
Okay. Then we should keep it as it was. I just saw these common classes to
handle the same thing in different places : jaxb-xjc.jar , Sun's JDK,
xml-resolver.jar. Looks like current way is the better option.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:21 AM, K Fung wrote:
> I would be inclined to disagree as w
I would be inclined to disagree as well due to the following...
1) Complications in an OSGI world. The OSGI runtime is unlikely to export
com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.resolver.* for usage.
2) Not all JVMs could have this package. In particular, I'm thinking about
the IBM JDK.
-kl
On Thu, Dec
On Friday, December 16, 2011 10:20:38 AM Jim Ma wrote:
> Hi ,
> Since all the equivalent classes in xml-resolver.jar are all packaged in
> jaxb-xjc.jar. We can change the org.apache.cxf.catalog.CataLogManager to
> use com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.resolver.* class to decrease 82k
> distribution s
Hi ,
Since all the equivalent classes in xml-resolver.jar are all packaged in
jaxb-xjc.jar. We can change the org.apache.cxf.catalog.CataLogManager to
use com.sun.org.apache.xml.internal.resolver.* class to decrease 82k
distribution size. If there is no objection, I am going to commit the
change.
