JDOM 1.1.1 release candidate

[jhunter]

I just posted a release candidate for JDOM 1.1.1.  I'd appreciate  
people giving it a test to confirm there's nothing problematic about  
this, before I make it an official release.  I'd especially like your  
review if you're (a) an expert on surrogate pairs, (b) use a lot of  
XPath, (c) have deployments on JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4, or (d) really push the  
speed of XMLOutputter and can confirm the surrogate pair work hasn't  
slowed you down noticeably.  Email me privately with reports of  
success, or publicly on jdom-interest with any issues.

http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.zip
http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.tar.gz

Here's what's new:

Fixed a synchronization issue in the Namespace class that could cause a
hang when doing concurrent builds.

Added output support for Unicode surrogate pairs.

Added a new flag on SAXBuilder named setFastReconfigure() which, when  
set,
can speed reconfiguration by skipping repeated attempts to set  
features that
are determined not to be present on a parser.  Useful when doing many  
builds
per second.

Updated the provided Jaxen library from a modified Jaxen 1.0 to the  
latest
which is Jaxen 1.1.1.

Added reflection code in the error reporting system to support Android's
Dalvik VM which doesn't have the java.rmi.* classes.

-jh-

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Brad Cox, Ph.D.]

> From: Brad Cox <bradjcox@...>
> Date: July 23, 2009 7:52:35 AM EDT
> To: Jason Hunter <jhunter@...>
> Cc: jdom interest <jdom-interest@...>, jdom-announce@...,  
> Scott Emmons <lscotte@...>, Bob McWhirter <bob@...>
> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] JDOM 1.1.1 release candidate
>
>
> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of satisfied  
> use was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the  
> problem was trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which  
> gives OSGI fits. Been awhile since I've looked tho.
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Jason Hunter wrote:
>
>> I just posted a release candidate for JDOM 1.1.1.  I'd appreciate  
>> people giving it a test to confirm there's nothing problematic  
>> about this, before I make it an official release.  I'd especially  
>> like your review if you're (a) an expert on surrogate pairs, (b)  
>> use a lot of XPath, (c) have deployments on JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4, or (d)  
>> really push the speed of XMLOutputter and can confirm the surrogate  
>> pair work hasn't slowed you down noticeably.  Email me privately  
>> with reports of success, or publicly on jdom-interest with any  
>> issues.
>>
>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.zip
>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> Here's what's new:
>>
>> Fixed a synchronization issue in the Namespace class that could  
>> cause a
>> hang when doing concurrent builds.
>>
>> Added output support for Unicode surrogate pairs.
>>
>> Added a new flag on SAXBuilder named setFastReconfigure() which,  
>> when set,
>> can speed reconfiguration by skipping repeated attempts to set  
>> features that
>> are determined not to be present on a parser.  Useful when doing  
>> many builds
>> per second.
>>
>> Updated the provided Jaxen library from a modified Jaxen 1.0 to the  
>> latest
>> which is Jaxen 1.1.1.
>>
>> Added reflection code in the error reporting system to support  
>> Android's
>> Dalvik VM which doesn't have the java.rmi.* classes.
>>
>> -jh-
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Elliotte Rusty Harold-2]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Brad Cox<bcox@...> wrote:

>> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of satisfied use
>> was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the problem was
>> trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which gives OSGI fits. Been
>> awhile since I've looked tho.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER!

OSGI is a colossal time sink that only looks simple; but really,
really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. It is poorly
documented, and virtually untestable. It is like Maven on PCP.

Please don't succumb to the temptation to make a few more changes just
to support OSGI. If you want to support OSGI (which I'm finding to be
a lot more trouble than it's worth over in XOM) then please do it in
1.1.2 rather than holding 1.1.1 for it. There are critical bug fixes
in 1.1.1 that are useful without OSGI support.


--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@...
_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Brad Cox, Ph.D.]

Granted it sinks time. But don't blame that on OSGI. It's struggling  
(and sometimes failing) to provide a componetized model that can  
coexist with  the monolithic legacy libraries already out there. JDOM  
three problematic classes is only one example of why coexistence is so  
hard. That's hardly OSGI's fault. I give it points for even trying.

On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Brad Cox<bcox@...>  
> wrote:
>
>>> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of  
>>> satisfied use
>>> was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the  
>>> problem was
>>> trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which gives OSGI  
>>> fits. Been
>>> awhile since I've looked tho.
>
> DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER!
>
> OSGI is a colossal time sink that only looks simple; but really,
> really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. It is poorly
> documented, and virtually untestable. It is like Maven on PCP.
>
> Please don't succumb to the temptation to make a few more changes just
> to support OSGI. If you want to support OSGI (which I'm finding to be
> a lot more trouble than it's worth over in XOM) then please do it in
> 1.1.2 rather than holding 1.1.1 for it. There are critical bug fixes
> in 1.1.1 that are useful without OSGI support.
>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@...

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Brad Cox, Ph.D.]

PS: I made a 3D graphic in the right column of http://bradjcox.blogspot.com 
  about the difficulties that the monolithic libraries with trailer  
hitches model can cause.

On Jul 23, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Brad Cox<bcox@...>  
> wrote:
>
>>> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of  
>>> satisfied use
>>> was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the  
>>> problem was
>>> trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which gives OSGI  
>>> fits. Been
>>> awhile since I've looked tho.
>
> DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! DANGER!
>
> OSGI is a colossal time sink that only looks simple; but really,
> really isn't. I have learned this the hard way. It is poorly
> documented, and virtually untestable. It is like Maven on PCP.
>
> Please don't succumb to the temptation to make a few more changes just
> to support OSGI. If you want to support OSGI (which I'm finding to be
> a lot more trouble than it's worth over in XOM) then please do it in
> 1.1.2 rather than holding 1.1.1 for it. There are critical bug fixes
> in 1.1.1 that are useful without OSGI support.
>
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elharo@...

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[jhunter]

JDOM itself doesn't use any classes in the default namespace.  There's  
a JDOMAbout class (and two inner classes) that are used for some  
extraneous functionality.  Why don't you remove those from the JAR and  
see if it works for ya.  If so we could do a later release removing  
them.  They're just a toy feature.

-jh-

On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:52 AM, Brad Cox wrote:

> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of satisfied  
> use was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I recall, the  
> problem was trivial; 2-3 classes in the default namespace which  
> gives OSGI fits. Been awhile since I've looked tho.
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Jason Hunter wrote:
>
>> I just posted a release candidate for JDOM 1.1.1.  I'd appreciate  
>> people giving it a test to confirm there's nothing problematic  
>> about this, before I make it an official release.  I'd especially  
>> like your review if you're (a) an expert on surrogate pairs, (b)  
>> use a lot of XPath, (c) have deployments on JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4, or (d)  
>> really push the speed of XMLOutputter and can confirm the surrogate  
>> pair work hasn't slowed you down noticeably.  Email me privately  
>> with reports of success, or publicly on jdom-interest with any  
>> issues.
>>
>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.zip
>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>
>> Here's what's new:
>>
>> Fixed a synchronization issue in the Namespace class that could  
>> cause a
>> hang when doing concurrent builds.
>>
>> Added output support for Unicode surrogate pairs.
>>
>> Added a new flag on SAXBuilder named setFastReconfigure() which,  
>> when set,
>> can speed reconfiguration by skipping repeated attempts to set  
>> features that
>> are determined not to be present on a parser.  Useful when doing  
>> many builds
>> per second.
>>
>> Updated the provided Jaxen library from a modified Jaxen 1.0 to the  
>> latest
>> which is Jaxen 1.1.1.
>>
>> Added reflection code in the error reporting system to support  
>> Android's
>> Dalvik VM which doesn't have the java.rmi.* classes.
>>
>> -jh-
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Brad Cox, Ph.D.]

> From: Brad Cox <bradjcox@...>
> Date: July 23, 2009 8:21:56 PM EDT
> To: Jason Hunter <jhunter@...>
> Cc: Brad Cox <bradjcox@...>, jdom interest <jdom-interest@...
> >
> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] JDOM 1.1.1 release candidate
>
>
> I tried that and yes it works. Problem is, there's maven in the  
> middle wanting to use the one in the mvn repository, the one with  
> the toy classes that break OSGI. I tried to convey some of the  
> frustration in the graphic at http://bradjcox.blogspot.com re:  
> monolithic tools with trailer hitches. Hitch enough of those  
> together (eclipse, maven, osgi, jdom) and you get something  
> impossible to drive. I worked around it by finding a DOM replacement  
> that works with OSGI. XOM as I recall, this was awhile ago.
>
> On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Jason Hunter wrote:
>
>> JDOM itself doesn't use any classes in the default namespace.  
>> There's a JDOMAbout class (and two inner classes) that are used for  
>> some extraneous functionality.  Why don't you remove those from the  
>> JAR and see if it works for ya.  If so we could do a later release  
>> removing them.  They're just a toy feature.
>>
>> -jh-
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 4:52 AM, Brad Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Jason, FYI the reason I stopped using JDOM after years of  
>>> satisfied use was inability to make it coexist with OSGI. As I  
>>> recall, the problem was trivial; 2-3 classes in the default  
>>> namespace which gives OSGI fits. Been awhile since I've looked tho.
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Jason Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just posted a release candidate for JDOM 1.1.1.  I'd appreciate  
>>>> people giving it a test to confirm there's nothing problematic  
>>>> about this, before I make it an official release.  I'd especially  
>>>> like your review if you're (a) an expert on surrogate pairs, (b)  
>>>> use a lot of XPath, (c) have deployments on JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4, or  
>>>> (d) really push the speed of XMLOutputter and can confirm the  
>>>> surrogate pair work hasn't slowed you down noticeably.  Email me  
>>>> privately with reports of success, or publicly on jdom-interest  
>>>> with any issues.
>>>>
>>>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.zip
>>>> http://jdom.org/dist/binary/jdom-1.1.1-rc1.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>> Here's what's new:
>>>>
>>>> Fixed a synchronization issue in the Namespace class that could  
>>>> cause a
>>>> hang when doing concurrent builds.
>>>>
>>>> Added output support for Unicode surrogate pairs.
>>>>
>>>> Added a new flag on SAXBuilder named setFastReconfigure() which,  
>>>> when set,
>>>> can speed reconfiguration by skipping repeated attempts to set  
>>>> features that
>>>> are determined not to be present on a parser.  Useful when doing  
>>>> many builds
>>>> per second.
>>>>
>>>> Updated the provided Jaxen library from a modified Jaxen 1.0 to  
>>>> the latest
>>>> which is Jaxen 1.1.1.
>>>>
>>>> Added reflection code in the error reporting system to support  
>>>> Android's
>>>> Dalvik VM which doesn't have the java.rmi.* classes.
>>>>
>>>> -jh-
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>>>> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...

[Elliotte Rusty Harold-2]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Jason Hunter<jhunter@...> wrote:
> I just posted a release candidate for JDOM 1.1.1.  I'd appreciate people
> giving it a test to confirm there's nothing problematic about this, before I
> make it an official release.  I'd especially like your review if you're (a)
> an expert on surrogate pairs, (b) use a lot of XPath, (c) have deployments
> on JDK 1.2/1.3/1.4, or (d) really push the speed of XMLOutputter and can
> confirm the surrogate pair work hasn't slowed you down noticeably.  Email me
> privately with reports of success, or publicly on jdom-interest with any
> issues.


The release candidate works for us. We didn't push any of those areas
too heavily.

--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@...

_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@...