As a newbie, I can aver that it was fairly clear Xalan was set up to build
against 1.6 Xerces - I couldn't even download the source without
downloading Xerces in the same tar file. What was *NOT* clear was that I'd
have to re-write parts of it to build against 1.7 Xerces. 2.0 maybe, but
1.7? The existing system dictates that the libraries must be released in
lock step: Xalan 1.3 must be built against Xerces 1.6.
CVS tip revisions are a luxury some of us are not generally allowed: we're
under strict source control and our "code czar" prefers our nightly builds
to be created from releases. If I could have pointed to some
xml.apache.org docs that said Xalan 1.3 required Xerces 1.6 but the CVS tip
revision could use Xerces 1.7, I could get special permission to create my
own "release" from the CVS tip revisions and it sure would have saved me a
LOT of time.
Oh well. If it were simple, everyone would be doing it and I'd have to
change to Plan9. ;)
"Sal Mangano"
<sal.mangano@morgans To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
tanley.com> cc:
Subject: Re: Why isn't Xalan more
closely related to Xerces?
07/16/2002 12:52 PM
Please respond to
xalan-dev
Cliff,
I actually had just the opposite experience. I have built xalan/xerces for
both Sun and Windows platforms and found it trivial to do. The only
potential gotcha I experienced was that latest release Xalan wants to build
against 1.6 Xerces rather than 1.7. Bu that is documented. I don't think it
would be possible to mandate that the libraries have to be released in lock
step. It might be nice to have a single tar/zip file that packaged the
dependent components together.
Other than that I have found Xalan trivial to build. What specifically were
your problems?
p.s. I am not part of the Xalan/Xerces development team so this is an
unbiased view!
Regards,
Sal
----- Original Message -----
From: Kilpatrick, Cliff
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:13 PM
Subject: Why isn't Xalan more closely related to Xerces?
I am writing with a question that all of my associates have faced when
trying to use xerces together with xalan. Why aren't the source trees
more closely related? It takes hours of time and a lot of energy to get
Xalan to compile and link. After two days of focusing on it I finally
called it a day. It was quite a shock to learn I spent the first day
wasting my time trying to link xalan with the current version of xerces
which I've had on my development system for several days.
Not to be all negative I was quite pleased with how easily it set up on my
windows workstation. Why haven't you used automake and autoconf to their
fullest? I've installed a lot of applications on our Sun E450 with almost
no problems.
I also think that Xalan and Xerces are the best tools available in the
open source market. I found the api easy to use and very functional.
Unfortunately, because of the difficulty in setting up Xalan, I'm going to
have to find another tool because my company has 3 Dec-Alphas and 4
Solaris systems with a variety of configurations. I can't spend 2-3 days
on each machine trying to set up a third party library. It's ridiculous.
If there is any way I can help other than complaining, please let me know.
I would be happy to offer some of my time to help with creating a more
robust package. I am an experienced C, C++, Java programmer with 4years
of Computer Science under my belt and 6 years of industry experience
working for various internet/publishing companies.
Cliff Kilpatrick, Software Engineer
Cambridge Scientific Abstracts
7200 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 600
Bethesda, MD, 20814
ph: 301.961.6787
em: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
