[jdom-interest] Any Beta 9 RC1 issues?

[Jason Hunter]

Yep, that's why we're leaning toward making reuse the default and
removing the switch.  But I'd like to know what, if any, fallout there
will be.  If a parser with wide distribution has a bug on reuse, we need
to consider that no matter what the SAX docs say.  For example, if the
JDK parser had a bug and didn't support reuse then neither would we. 
:-)  So far no one's pointed at any problem parsers.  It's been a year
since it was clarified in SAX.  So we're looking good.

-jh-

Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> 
> We've been through this discussion before on parser reuse. If the
> JavaDocs (as referenced by Elliotte) aren't clear enough here's the link
> to the email confirming reusability of SAX parsers from current SAX
> maintainer David Brownell, as well as from the original author of SAX,
> David Megginson:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/lists/jdom-interest/2002-March/009746.html
> 
> If a parser isn't reusable it's broken. If you know of a case where
> there's a problem report it to the authors to be fixed. I'd suggest that
> working around the correct parser behavior on the assumption that some
> parsers will be broken doesn't help anybody.
> 
>   - Dennis
> 
> Jason Hunter wrote:
> 
> >So has anyone found any issues with the Beta 9 RC1?
> >
> >The only thing I see outstanding is that we may remove the
> >SAXBuilder.setReuseParser() method and just turn reuse on always.  Since
> >it's a new method it's better to do that now than later when we'd break
> >code.  The big question is, are all SAX parsers conformant in allowing
> >reuse?
> >
> >-jh-
> >_______________________________________________
> >To control your jdom-interest membership:
> >http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com
> >
> >
> >