[izpack-devel] Updating to latest version of NanoXML

Bartz, Klaus Klaus.Bartz at coi.de
Tue Jan 9 09:13:54 CET 2007

Hi all,
will be nice if we change to an xml parser which is included in
the VM. I have played a little bit with javax.xml.*. For me it seems
so that with a flat wrapper the changes in IzPack have not to be
to big. 
To declare a leadtime has the chance to define the used api (if a 
wrapper will be used) and discuss it. 
In my installations NanoXML is not used only in the common base of 
IzPack else in all my custom code which needs a configuration via an 
xml file. I will do the needed changes there because I am certain
that it is the right way.
If we find no api for a common wrapper I will do it for my own code.

We should see that a change creates an incompatibility for all users
which have custom configuration files. This has to be communicated
with big letter at a good seeing place.

May be we can create a todo list or roadmap for the next but one  



>-----Original Message-----
>From: izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de
>[mailto:izpack-devel-bounces at lists.berlios.de]On Behalf Of Julien Ponge
>Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:20 AM
>To: elmar at grom.net; izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de
>Subject: Re: [izpack-devel] Updating to latest version of NanoXML
>Hi guys,
>I would add that we can simplify things by combining DOM + XPath,
>which avoids many boilerplate nested loops to retrieve data. I am in
>favor or the javax.xml.* solution rather than using JDom (or Dom4j
>which I like very much). As Elmar said, the reason is that it wouldn't
>add bytes to the installers while JDom would, even if it is an
>appealing library.
>I suggest that we put this item for 3.11.0.
>izpack-devel mailing list
>izpack-devel at lists.berlios.de

More information about the izpack-devel mailing list