Re: JDOM 1.1.1 release candidate
Brad Cox <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jdom.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Granted it sinks time. But don't blame that on OSGI. It's struggling (and sometimes failing) to provide a componetized model that can coexist with the monolithic legacy libraries already out there. JDOM three problematic classes is only one example of why coexistence is so hard. That's hardly OSGI's fault. I give it points for even trying. On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Brad Cox<[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of >>> satisfied use >>> was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the >>> problem was >>> trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which gives OSGI >>> fits. Been >>> awhile since I've looked tho. > > DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER! > > OSGI is a colossal time sink that only looks simple; but really, > really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. It is poorly > documented, and virtually untestable. It is like Maven on PCP. > > Please don't succumb to the temptation to make a few more changes just > to support OSGI. If you want to support OSGI (which I'm finding to be > a lot more trouble than it's worth over in XOM) then please do it in > 1.1.2 rather than holding 1.1.1 for it. There are critical bug fixes > in 1.1.1 that are useful without OSGI support. > > > -- > Elliotte Rusty Harold > [email protected] _______________________________________________ To control your jdom-interest membership: http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]