<dependency>
<groupId>xerces</groupId>
<artifactId>xercesImpl</artifactId>
<version>2.8.0</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>xerces</groupId>
<artifactId>xmlParserAPIs</artifactId>
<version>2.6.0</version>
</dependency>
so maybe he has determined that 2.6.0 is the level of API we need and 2.8.0 is the level of impl we need. Jochen, would you care to comment?
I am slightly anxious that we might be packaging the APIs at 2.6.0 and the impl at 2.8.0. We should at least take api and impl jars from the same level. It's just good to know we only need 2.6.0's APIs.
Thanks,
Jeremy
On 9/18/06,
Arthur Ryman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should move up to the latest maintenance releases in order to pick up improvements in quality and performance, but not adopt new APIs so that we don't force everyone else to move up too.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/15/2006 03:05 PM
[email protected]
Xerces-J 2.8.1
Hi, Xerces-J just released 2.8.1. Our ant build is set to require
2.8.0. It's easy enough to move up to 2.8.1 but should we? Should we
be moving up to the latest and greatest Xerces when an older one would
be sufficient. We don't require the latest JRE.
I'd be +1 to using the oldest Xerces that we can use and still pass
our unit tests. This then puts a lesser requirement on our users.
What do you all think?
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
