The duplicate class registration problem]

Thu Oct 25 13:55:00 GMT 2001

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