Re: SVGDOMImplementation vs. 1.8?

One additional note:

Modularity is good, but....

I find the number of Batik jars confusing enough that for runtime usage 
I just include them all.

For build/compilation purposes I'd due the same if I could use 
wildcards, but in the case of many types of tooling (e.g. typical Ant 
usage) you end up having to list each jar individually -- at which point 
I end up adding exactly what I need to get things to build.  It's not 
that I /want/ to express this granularity of dependency, though -- I'd 
rather just express a dependency on "batik" and be done.

--
Jess Holle

On 3/27/2015 11:42 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
> P.S. Thanks for the quick and effective help.
>
> I would like to point out, however, that moving a public API between 
> packages:
>
>  1. Breaks binary compatibility and therefore should be avoided if at
>     all possible (perhaps mashing the jars together would have been
>     better)
>  2. Should really be explicitly noted in the release notes to avoid
>     such confusion
>
> --
> Jess Holle
>
> On 3/27/2015 11:31 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
>> We don't read SVGs from our users, /but/ most security folk just see 
>> a security vulnerability and expect that a fixed version be used, period.
>>
>> They don't care that you'll never actually trigger it in your library 
>> usage -- they don't bother mincing such fine details.
>>
>> On 3/27/2015 11:26 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
>>> On 03/27/2015 11:46 AM, Luis Bernardo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>> >
>>>> Note that unless you need to use CMYK colors or you face some of few
>>>> bugs that have been fixed since 1.7 there is no need to upgrade. Batik
>>>> has been mostly inactive since 1.7 and the main developments in Batik
>>>> (except for CMYK) are only likely to be noticeable if you use FOP.
>>>
>>> There is security vulnerability on 1.7 (CVE-2015-0250). Unless a 
>>> 7.1.1 is released with the fix, a migration to 1.8 is a must if you 
>>> read SVGs from users
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/27/15 4:51 PM, Jess Holle wrote:
>>>>> Batik 1.8 seems to have removed the
>>>>> org.apache.batik.dom.svg.SVGDOMImplementation class, whereas this
>>>>> class is present in 1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the Batik site itself provides examples using this class.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what's the story here?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask as I am trying to move to Batik 1.8, but we have a class which
>>>>> is using SVGDOMImplementation (for its SVG_NAMESPACE_URI constant and
>>>>> its getDOMImplementation() method) and thus cannot currently move 
>>>>> to 1.8.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am mystified as to how I am supposed to be able to move to 1.8 --
>>>>> and why this API change is not clearly noted in the release notes.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Jess Holle
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>>> [email protected]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>
>