XOM API for Processing XML with Java

["Peter Stibrany" <pstibrany AT gmail.com>]

Hello,

there are already few OSGi bundles of XOM library available, for
example one at SpringSource OSGi Bundle Repository:

http://www.springsource.com/repository/app/bundle/version/detail?name=com.springsource.nu.xom&version=1.1.0&searchType=bundlesBySymbolicName&searchQuery=xom

-Peter

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 1/8/09, Elliotte Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> ...
>> > Hi everyone, I'm aware this same question was asked before here
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/xom-interest/2006-July/003075.html but 
>> it
>> > seems it wasn't answered (or at least I can't find the answer anywhere)
>> > I'm having exactly the same problem, and not only with version 1.2 but 
>> > with
>> > version 1.1 too. Also, can anyone explain why XOM insists in compiling 
>> > the
>> > Jaxen sources when just including the jar in the classpath would suffice?
>>
>> Because classpaths are a royal pain to deal with. I want XOM to require
>> nothing more than a standard VM to run.
>
> This is understandable.
> But going forward, one potential solution to this might be using OSGi: they 
> handle this problem quite nicely, I think, and it is relatively easy to 
> "convert" existing libraries to have necessary OSGi information.
> When running on OSGi platform, different libraries can depend on different 
> versions of other libs (defined by versions that relate to Java packages, 
> not jars).
>
> So, would it make sense to start adding OSGi information within XOM 
> library.  This requires nothing more than adding proper manifest entries 
> and testing result loads with, say, Felix console. There are Ant and Maven 
> tasks for doing this. For things to work, same would also need to be done 
> for Jaxen (which should be easy too).
> Since this only solves the problem for OSGi users (code running on systems 
> that use OSGi for class loading) it would mean having to provide 2 versions 
> of XOM -- one with bundled Jaxen, other without (latter using OSGi), at 
> least on short/medium term.
> But I think this could still be worth the hassle.
>
> What do you think? I could help with OSGi bundle building if necessary.
>
> -+ Tatu +-
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> XOM-interest mailing list
> XOM-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/xom-interest
>