Gareth
On 6 Feb 2004, at 15:16, PeiYong Zhang wrote:
+1
PeiYong
<x-tad-smaller>Neil Graham/Toronto/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/03/2004 08:56:26 PM:</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Hi folks,</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > As folks who've been following this list for a while will have noticed,</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > there's at least one particularly nasty bug in 2.4.0 that's driving folks</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > crazy. That is, the parser sometimes reports attributes as being</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > duplicates when namespaces are disabled even when that's most certainly not</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > the case.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > But there are some other rather severe problems with 2.4.0 as well:</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > - The parser will often read freed memory while looking for duplicate</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > attributes;</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > - There are a considerable number of bugs in the XML Schema API</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > implementation. Most severe of these are a collection in the</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > getCanonicalRepresentation code that sometimes causes it to overwrite</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > random memory locations.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > There have been myriad bugfixes applied recently as well, particularly to</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > improve thread safety, make sure the appropriate memory manager is used in</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > any context, and clean up compiler warnings.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > So before we contemplate moving forward with development, perhaps it's a</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > good time to produce a bugfix release. Normally, one would like to</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > increment only the patch number and call this 2.4.1; but since so many</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > files have been touched since 2.4.0, it's unreasonable to assume we will</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > have binary compatibility on every platform. So that's why I'll propose to</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > call this 2.5.0.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > I'll suggest that we should aim to publish this before the end of next</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > week, and in the mean time try and fix as many outstanding bugs (and commit</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > as many outstanding patches!) as possible. It would be wonderful if people</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > who have patches pending which have yet to be applied could retrofit their</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > patches to the current codebase, recognizing that it's unlikely any patches</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > made against the 2.4.0 source will apply cleanly now.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Here's my +1.</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Cheers!</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Neil</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Neil Graham</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > XML Parser Development</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > IBM Toronto Lab</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> > </x-tad-smaller>
