• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Sun is forking SAX
• From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
• Date: 21 Jul 2003 09:43:10 -0700
• In-reply-to: <p04330100bb417375796b@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p04330107bb405e04435e@[192.168.254.4]><m33ch08o83.fsf@t...><p04330100bb417375796b@[192.168.254.4]>
• Sender: ari@l...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2

Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> writes:

> At 10:04 PM -0700 7/20/03, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> 
> >I agree that these are poor interfaces, but aren't these the ones that
> >the "full-size", j2SE JAXP specifies?
> 
> No, that's a very common misconception, and I don't know
> why. SAXParser/SAXParserFactory were added to JAXP 1.0 because it only
> supported SAX 1, which did not have any equivalent of
> XMLReader/XMLReaderFactory.

Thank you for pointing this out. Makes perfect sense now that you
mention it; I just never thought javax.xml.parsers for the makeshift
extension to SAX and DOM that it is. I guess the entire package should
be deprecated once DOM Level 3 L&S is finalized?

It is possible that the confusion has something to do with the fact
that XMLReaderFactory hides deep in the org.xml.sax.helpers package,
along with classes that are mostly useful for SAX producers.

Ari.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Sun is forking SAX
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Sun is forking SAX
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Sun is forking SAX
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)
  • Re: Sun is forking SAX
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Must SOAP-based array types be insufficiently validatable?
• Next by Date: Re: Must SOAP-based array types be insufficiently validatable?
• Previous by thread: Re: Sun is forking SAX
• Next by thread: Re: Sun is forking SAX
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread