8:19 a.m.
We are keeping a (old) fork around for Xalan. Now and then the question
pops whether we can backport more from upstream. Rather I want to rid of
it at all as I don't want to maintain forks of third party projects and
I don't see Xalan releasing soon with anything we would upstream.
Can we remove Xalan? (Maybe we have some weird dependency on specifics.)
What should be its replacement?
Filed https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4704 to note any decisions.
Carlo
8:30 a.m.
The only reason we need Xalan is to provide a jaxp impl of transformer. Ideally we could
just rely on the JDK, which uses a fork of xalan, but the translet code which is compiled
by it is not compatible with modular classloading. So we just need that one patch. As of
late the JDK fork is more current, so we could potentially switch to a fork of it instead.
Since Java 9 is moving to modularity, I imagine they would fix the same issue, we could
also send them a patch.
On May 29, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
We are keeping a (old) fork around for Xalan. Now and then the question
pops whether we can backport more from upstream. Rather I want to rid of
it at all as I don't want to maintain forks of third party projects and
I don't see Xalan releasing soon with anything we would upstream.
Can we remove Xalan? (Maybe we have some weird dependency on specifics.)
What should be its replacement?
Filed https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4704 to note any decisions.
Carlo
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
8:46 a.m.
It was proposed to consider switching to Saxon, since Xalan has
basically been dead since 2007. Saxon apears to include a
TransformerFactoryImpl (though I don't have any idea as to completeness
of compatibility).
On 05/29/2015 08:30 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
The only reason we need Xalan is to provide a jaxp impl of
transformer. Ideally we could just rely on the JDK, which uses a fork of xalan, but the
translet code which is compiled by it is not compatible with modular classloading. So we
just need that one patch. As of late the JDK fork is more current, so we could potentially
switch to a fork of it instead. Since Java 9 is moving to modularity, I imagine they would
fix the same issue, we could also send them a patch.
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> We are keeping a (old) fork around for Xalan. Now and then the question
> pops whether we can backport more from upstream. Rather I want to rid of
> it at all as I don't want to maintain forks of third party projects and
> I don't see Xalan releasing soon with anything we would upstream.
>
> Can we remove Xalan? (Maybe we have some weird dependency on specifics.)
> What should be its replacement?
>
> Filed https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4704 to note any decisions.
>
> Carlo
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
--
- DML
8:55 a.m.
from their website
Saxon-HE 9.6
"The open-source implementation of XSLT 2.0, and XPath 2.0 and 3.0, and
XQuery 1.0 and 3.0. This provides the "basic" conformance level of these
languages; it also supports some optional features of the specifications
such as serialization and support for XQuery modules.
Not included in the Home Edition are: schema processing and schema aware
XSLT and XQuery; support for higher-order functions; numerous Saxon
extensions; calling out to Java methods; XQuery Update support; various
optimizations including join optimization; streamed processing; and byte
code generation."
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:46 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
It was proposed to consider switching to Saxon, since Xalan has
basically been dead since 2007. Saxon apears to include a
TransformerFactoryImpl (though I don't have any idea as to completeness
of compatibility).
On 05/29/2015 08:30 AM, Jason T. Greene wrote:
> The only reason we need Xalan is to provide a jaxp impl of transformer.
Ideally we could just rely on the JDK, which uses a fork of xalan, but the
translet code which is compiled by it is not compatible with modular
classloading. So we just need that one patch. As of late the JDK fork is
more current, so we could potentially switch to a fork of it instead. Since
Java 9 is moving to modularity, I imagine they would fix the same issue, we
could also send them a patch.
>
>> On May 29, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> We are keeping a (old) fork around for Xalan. Now and then the question
>> pops whether we can backport more from upstream. Rather I want to rid of
>> it at all as I don't want to maintain forks of third party projects and
>> I don't see Xalan releasing soon with anything we would upstream.
>>
>> Can we remove Xalan? (Maybe we have some weird dependency on specifics.)
>> What should be its replacement?
>>
>> Filed https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-4704 to note any decisions.
>>
>> Carlo
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
--
- DML
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
3499
days inactive
3499
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Carlo de Wolf -
David M. Lloyd -
Jason T. Greene -
Tomaž Cerar