On Tuesday, 03/26/2002 at 04:57 PST, Shane Curcuru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I presume you're only talking about the custom incremental support that > we enable in specific situations when we detect we're using Xerces (1.x > or 2.x), correct?
Yes... although as we move toward using schema-derived type information, we're going to become more dependent upon APIs that Xerces1 doesn't support. > Immaterial of this decision, Xalan will still work by default (i.e. > both compile and run) with any JAXP-compliant parser, either Xerces > 1.x, 2.x, Crimson, or others, correct? The only thing we would lose > would be the special incremental mode we allow when using Xerces > directly. Requesting incremental construction from Xerces1 would fall back on IncrementalSAXSource_Filter, as we do for incremental handling of other SAX streams. The main effect on users would be that we would now require Xerces2 at compile time. (Which may or may not be a reasonable assumption to make, so there may be a long-term argument for using reflection here. But I really hope not...) > Also: is this just a maintenance divot you'd like to simplify Mostly. I'm mucking about with that code right now in the process of experimenting with XNI support, and the reflection stuff does impact readability. > I'd vote to keep Xerces 1 support for another release or two I don't feel very strongly on this, so I don't object; just wanted to get a sense of whether there were likely to be anguished screams when we do eventually pull the Xerces1 special-case.
