This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 47724 - Remove dependency on Xalan
Summary: Remove dependency on Xalan
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: xml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSL (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P1 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Milan Kuchtiak
URL:
Keywords: ARCH
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-08-23 17:44 UTC by Milan Kuchtiak
Modified: 2007-09-25 01:34 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Milan Kuchtiak 2004-08-23 17:44:27 UTC
The dependency on Xalan had to be added since in
JDK1.5 the compilation/runtime were broken.
See the issue 47575.

This is due to XPath class, which has been moved
from org.apache.xpath to javax.xml.xpath package.

It is desirable to get rid of the dependency on
Xalan to make IDE more effective.
Comment 1 Jesse Glick 2004-08-23 21:15:48 UTC
Definitely. Xalan is a big library and it would be much nicer not to
have to maintain our own copy of it.

Out of curiosity, what are we using XPath for? From grepping, it looks
like just for code completion on XPath expressions in XSL scripts. If
so, this is probably not a strong enough justification by itself to
bundle all of Xalan. (You could instead bundle an independent XPathAPI
impl; or try to use the JDK's copy by reflection on well-known class
names, and skip the feature quietly if not found.)
Comment 2 Milan Kuchtiak 2004-08-24 10:26:48 UTC
Moreover, that code completion was based on XSL scenarios that have
been most likely removed from IDE (not accessible through UI).
It seems that we can simply comment out that part of code and remove
the dependency on Xalan.
Comment 4 tonybeckham 2007-04-10 23:52:46 UTC
mkuchtiak,
This issue submitted by you is marked as resolved. Since it relates to some
source code specifics, QA is unable to verify it. Could you please verify this
issue and mark it as verified or reopen it?