[jsword-devel] Streamlining of Commons

[DM Smith]

Thanks for the input. I am always looking ahead, and for ways to 
simplify and reduce.

I took a look at jdk1.4 and it is using crimson, which is an old, old 
implementation. I seem to remember it in JDK1.3.
JDK 1.5 will be using Xerces 2.6.2.

My guess (w/o testing) is that crimson has the problems, even though the 
code has what looks like an implementation of importNode().

According to JDom is that it is lightweight (wrt core) compared to other 
DOM implementations.

I have upgraded to JDom 1.0, tested it (looks ok) and checked it in. I 
think we will be w/ it for a while. At least through JSword 1.0.

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> Joe and co.,
>     If your parser claims to be DOM Level 2 compliant it needs to 
> support Node::importNode for doing this.  Many parsers, a few years 
> back, were not level 2 compliant.  Here is an example of code that 
> will fail on these parsers (and is exactly what I think Joe wants to 
> do by moving nodes between trees).
>
> Node newNode = tree2Node.getOwnerDocument().importNode(tree1Node, true);
> tree2Node.appendChild(newNode);
>
>     Hope this helps and isn't totally off the wall.
>
>         -Troy.
>
>
>
> Joe Walker wrote:
>
>> We used to use DOM for parsing most things but there was a major flaw
>> - it was not possible to move nodes from one tree to another which is
>> easy with JDOM. I would be hesitant about ditching JDOM without us
>> knowing that this problem is fixed.
>>
>> Joe.
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:28:27 -0400, DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have streamlined JSword by eliminating the dependency upon apache
>>> commons and log4j. I also finished the elimination of winlaf (it was
>>> still in the build and the jnlp file).
>>>
>>> Turns out our use of commons was fairly trivial and in most cases
>>> represented a capability that is now present in Java 1.4.
>>> I did add a few methods to StringUtil and to ClassUtil. And I replace
>>> the for Enums with the same Type Safe Enumeration I had created 
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> These jars total about 550K. Net result is that BibleDesktop is under
>>> 1.8M (it wen up to about 2.3 when lucene was added)
>>>
>>> The only other jar that commons depends upon is jdom and it is about 
>>> 150K.
>>>
>>> WRT using commons.jar with FlashCard, the changes that have been done
>>> mean that it will not need jdom.jar.
>>>
>>> I am wondering how it differs from the built-in dom that's in Java 1.4.
>>> Does it add value over that?
>>>
>>> I have used Java 1.4's DOM to do the same kind of thing that JDom is
>>> being used for.
>>>
>>> I am in the process of checking in the changes now.
>>>