[izpack-devel] Updating to latest version of NanoXML
Klaus.Bartz at coi.de
Mon Jan 8 11:24:56 CET 2007
I remember fragile that there were some changes in
the NanoXML code which will be used by IzPack. Therefore
the sources are holded also in the IzPack repository.
Is this right or not?
If so, a simple update to the latest version will be
On the other hand it is not so easy to change to DOM or so
because there are many places where xml data will be used
and this not only in the common area of IzPack else also
in custom code.
On the third hand I am sometimes playing with a registry
editor which uses my registry stuff from IzPack. For the
configuration I need xml, but I will not use the old NanoXML
stuff. At this point it will be nice if IzPack uses no
On principle we can use xml support of the VM because since
IzPack 3.9 a 1.4 VM is required. There are some problems in
NanoXML which has made us some work in the past (e.g. support
of wrong xml files which can be fixed by a validating parser).
I vote to use the 1.4 VM classes and create a wrapper near
(or identically) to the NanoXML api.
Who do it??
Unfortunately I do not know..., I have problems to get the time
for other stuff I have todo for IzPack.
>From: izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de
>[mailto:izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de]On Behalf Of Stefan
>Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:13 AM
>To: izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
>Subject: Re: [izpack-devel] Updating to latest version of NanoXML
>some time ago there was a discussion on this list that
>favoured NanoXML in order to stay compatible
>with Java 1.3, Java 1.2, ... I think this argument is still valid.
>I did update my private IzPack version to the latested NanoXML
>release because it solves my original
>problem (the character not being kept). Until now I do
>not experience other problems.
>(Admittedly I did no extensive testing, yet.)
>In addition, I think that the XML API that NanoXML provides is
>quite usable. In contrast to that,
>using DOM would be not so funny. I also doubt that using some
>utility classes to handle DOM is a
>better solution than using NanoXML.
>Therefore I still suggest to update NanoXML to the latest
>version. I will report any problems
>encountered on the list.
>PS: A very elegant means to handle configuration data is data binding.
>izpack-devel mailing list
>izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
More information about the izpack-devel