commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: XML Im-/Ex-porter into Commons Sandbox
Date Sat, 09 Oct 2004 06:59:53 GMT
a few comments:

1 in the sandbox, anything goes.

2 if i18n depends on xmlio then xmlio needs to promoted and released 
before i18n is. so, it's important that xmlio has a good chance of 
being promoted and that any possible issues are discussed now.

3 alternatives are good but direct competitors are bad. we are short of 
developer energy here in the commons and components in the same area 
should share a community and coorperate rather than fight for mind 
share. fights for mind share between direct open source competitors can 
turn very nasty. we've (so far) managed to keep quite a healthy 
community here in the commons and i'm very keen to keep it this way. 
therefore, saying that xmlio needs a place in the commons because it's 
better than digester does make me worried. in the past, components 
pushed in this manner have tended to end up finding homes elsewhere.

4 users are going to ask: should i use digester (betwixt, JXPath, 
xmlbeans, jaxme) or xmlio? we should be able to clearly and fair 
describe and explain the differences if we are going to have two 
components. if digester and xmlio really are direct competitors (no 
substantial conceptual or philosophical differences, just 
implementation ones) then it would be better to rename xmlio digester 2 
(packaged under the org.apache.commons.digester2). digester (1) is 
mature now and it's not really possible to push it much further. work 
on a combined digester 1 replacement could then start as digester 3 
(packaged under rg.apache.commons.digester3).

- robert

On 7 Oct 2004, at 23:46, Martin Cooper wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:27:39 +0100, Stephen Colebourne
> <> wrote:
>> One of the key items in the commons charter is allowing different 
>> solutions
>> to the same problem. So far, we have tended to avoid this (for 
>> example, I
>> took a conflicting primitives design elsewhere) however we should not 
>> block
>> this.
>> What is being requested at this point is to factor out some code from
>> another project (Slide) to commons. This is IMHO perfectly good and 
>> what
>> commons is for. The code is going to the sandbox where we can all 
>> determine
>> whether it is a good addition to the commons-proper fold. (eg. 
>> performance
>> tests, code design, documentation). Who knows maybe the ideas will 
>> end up as
>> digester 2! IMO thats what the sandbox is for.
> In general, I agree with you. However, in this case, the reason for
> bringing this component to the sandbox is because another component
> that has only just arrived in the sandbox (i18n) wants to use it
> instead of Digester. It seems that this XML component wasn't going to
> be brought to Commons (at least for the moment) until there was
> mention that i18n wanted to use it.
> I'm not sure that I like the idea of new sandbox components bringing
> along other components as baggage when there is already suitable
> functionality available in Commons Proper. On the other hand, I would
> not be opposed to bringing the XML component in _later_, and letting
> it stand or fall on its own.
> --
> Martin Cooper
>> BTW, I don't disagree with the comments about bad dependency 
>> management
>> below, I just disagree that that necessarily implies only ever 
>> supporting
>> digester.
>> Finally, the name ;-)
>> xmlio  (ie. xml io)
>> sax
>> saxio
>> Typically, the commons project is named after the technology it works 
>> on.
>> Without having seen the code its also difficult to judge what a good 
>> name
>> would be ;-) I quite like xmlio myself.
>> Stephen
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Graham" <>
>>> This will create bloat problems for clients that use Digester.  For
>>> example:  Struts uses Digester for xml parsing.  In the future 
>>> Struts may
>>> want to use the new i18n component.  However, if i18n uses XML 
>>> Im-Exporter
>>> then Struts must drag that along too despite already having a 
>>> perfectly
>>> fine xml parser in its dependency list.
>>> Struts is just one example.  It will be even worse for inter-commons
>>> project dependencies.
>>> Bad dependency management has plagued commons components and it's 
>>> just
>>> recently started to get better.  If all commons components use 
>>> Digester
>>> then we can avoid having to duplicate functionality and bloat
>>> dependencies.
>>> I don't understand what's wrong with Digester that necessitates a new
>>> parsing library.  I've been able to write complex parsing rules in a
>>> matter of minutes.
>>> David
>>> --- Oliver Zeigermann <> wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>> on the request of Daniel Florey I'd like to create at least one new
>>>> sandbox component for a tool that allows easy import / export of XML
>>>> into / from Java. It is used by Jakarta Slide and in the components
>>>> Daniel introduced.
>>>> I know this is a bit delicate as there already is Digester around in
>>>> commons. However, the audience for my tool is different from
>>>> Digester's. XML Im-/Exporter is geared towards high performance use
>>>> for people who are very familiar with XML. It is just a little bit
>>>> more than pure SAX. It also has a different philosohie than 
>>>> Digester.
>>>> Having said that I hope not to cause any inconvenience with this...
>>>> Preparing this now  and cheers,
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message