Re: The duplicate class registration problem]

["Anthony Green" <green at redhat dot com>]

David wrote:
> implementations can be shared libraries, loaded on demand
> using
> the existing APIs.  (That does work right, yes?)

Yes.

> SAX has always provided bootstrapping APIs, but DOM has yet to standardize
> on
> them ... ergo the need for JAXP support.  "org.w3c.*" completely ignores
> SAX.

Oh, right.  I meant "org.xml.*", which is also in libgcj.

> > org.xml.sax.XMLReader parser
> >     = (XMLReader)
> >
Class.forName(System.getProperty("gnu.java.util.prefs.XMLImplementation").newI
nstance();
>
> NO NO NO!!  Do not invent _yet another_ mechanism.  Either use the SAX
> mechanism

Well, I didn't invent this -- it came from the Xerces SAX2 example code.  If
there's a better way then will should definitely use it.

> I think you misunderstand how the implementation-neutral bootstrapping
> works,
> or were reading "libgcj should include XML support" differently than I meant
> it.

I don't understand what you're saying.  What makes you think this?

> And I must say I'm amused at the implication that Xerces is not bloated;
> it's
> a fairly fat monolithic wad of stuff.

Hmm... I don't think I said that.  All I said was that we shouldn't force
people into using multiple implementations at the same time.

AG