Tommaso Teofili wrote: > Hi Marshall,I tried to remove jsr173 dependency from SimpleServer and > DictionaryAnnotator and used Xmlbeans 2.4.0 version. > Tests and packaging behave properly (/lib directory had not been removed in > SimpleServer since I was waiting for the issue to be closed, but it should > be deleted as soon as "Maven way" is definitely chosen). > > StAX ( http://stax.codehaus.org/Home ) is under Apache License 2.0 so it's > ok from the licensing point of view, we should only investigate if we "like" > this JSR173 specification implementation or we would like to choose another > one. > In my opinion it is ok (no more dependencies needed).
If the test cases go through, it's safe to switch and I'm all for it (speaking for SimpleServer and RegexAnnotator). --Thilo > > Tommaso > > > 2009/9/21 Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> > >> Several sandbox projects have dependencies on xmlbeans (e.g. >> RegularExpressionAnnotator, SimpleServer, and >> ConfigurableFeatureExtractor). >> >> The first 2 have obtained xmlbeans from http://xmlbeans.apache.org (as >> evidenced by their NOTICE). >> >> They have copied (some of) the Jar files that come from this into their >> lib/ directories (xbean.jar, jsr173_1.0_api.jar). >> >> The maven repo entry >> >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/xmlbeans/xmlbeans/2.4.0/xmlbeans-2.4.0.pom >> lists a dependency >> >> <dependency> >> <groupId>stax</groupId> >> <artifactId>stax-api</artifactId> >> <version>1.0.1</version> >> </dependency> >> >> In the maven repository, this is listed as an Apache-licensed Jar, and I >> have read on the web (must be right :-) ) that this is a substitute >> which could be used instead of the jsr173_1.0_api. >> >> If I switch things in the Sandbox to obtain jar parts that are >> dependencies from the Maven repo system, instead of taking them from our >> lib/ directories, this change will result in having the above 2 projects >> get the xbean jar (as before) at version 2.4.0 and the stax_api jar >> version 1.0.1 instead of the jsr173_1.0_api. >> >> Is this OK? >> >> -Marshall (who is quite confused by the existence of all these >> alternative ways of putting parts together...) >> >
