Re: URGENT: SAX and JSR 206 (JAXP 1.3)

Almost two weeks ago, I sent the plea below to the sax-devel list.

I don't know how to interpret the total silence of the SAX developer
community. Help, please.

/ Norman Walsh <[email protected]> was heard to say:
| Several months ago (The list archive[1], as identified by List-Post:
| seems to be down so I can't point to the message), Jeff Suttor
| started a thread on this list about changes to SAX that JAXP needs and
| that need to be "final" before JAXP ships.
|
| The consensus on the list seemed to be that it was (a) inappropriate
| for JAXP to make changes to SAX and (b) unnecessary for the features
| we need. Several alternatives were suggested, among them the existing
| SAX2 Extensions classes and more generally the extension mechanism.
|
| As one of the spec leads for JSR 206, I want very much to participate
| as a good "net citizen" in the development and deployment of SAX. I
| certainly want to avoid any impression that we're somehow trying to
| make inappropriate changes. We aren't.
|
| However, we have hard deadlines and products that have to ship. I see
| a very nasty problem looming on the horizon and I am desperately
| seeking your aid in resolving it.
|
| The problem in a nutshell is that JAXP needs to expose some features
| of the infoset (for example, the XML version information from the XML
| declaration) that aren't available in standard SAX.
|
| We initially offered to provide patches to SAX to support access to
| the information we need. Those were rejected for the reasons I
| mentioned above. Fair enough.
|
| Two alternatives seem to exist:
|
| 1. Use the existing "SAX2 Extensions" to get access to this
| information. I think that's a fine answer. But there's a nasty
| procedural problem we need to overcome. The SAX2 Extensions library is
| currently labeled[2] "1.1beta1". I don't believe I'm going to be able
| to get JAXP through the JCP process with a normative reference to a
| standard that's labelled "beta".
|
| 2. We could use the existing extension framework to write our own
| extensions. But I fear that we'd naturally wind up with something that
| was effectively the same as the existing SAX2 Extensions. That seems
| like both a waste of effort and an unnecessary proliferation of
| classes for developers.
|
| If the SAX developer community feels that it has achieved enough
| experience with the extensions to label them "1.1", removing the
| "beta" moniker, I think (I am speaking only for myself in this
| message) that would resolve the problem.
|
| If that isn't something that can practically be achieved in the
| timeframe available, I will be desperate for some other solution.
|
| Your advice is most sincerely solicited.
|
|                                         Be seeing you,
|                                           norm
|
| [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=sax-devel
| [2] http://sax.sourceforge.net/?selected=ext
|
| -- 
| Norman Walsh <[email protected]> | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back
| http://nwalsh.com/            | in.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email protected]> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAFsdrOyltUcwYWjsRAgSfAJ9heRwHsTOjMX4zUl7AnbXi9PlgAgCfTVsD
Via1lzflGQ+bPU3PmrfHuCA=
=Y4Cf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----