[jdom-interest] Introduction. JDOM for Java5?
phil.weighill-smith at volantis.com
Sat Jan 28 01:03:38 PST 2006
In my opinion a beta should be far more "locked down" than occurred with JDOM... APIs changing as radically as those in JDOM imply alpha rather than beta stage (IMHO, beta implies that development is essentially complete, with API and function available, but that full testing and debugging hasn't been performed, whereas alpha implies that some API and function is there but the software is still in development).
You're right about WebSphere... (not using it but having to be deployable to it).
As I said, JDOM is actually a pretty good library...
From: Spencer Marks [mailto:smarks at digisolutions.com]
Sent: Thu 1/26/2006 21:34
To: jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] Introduction. JDOM for Java5?
I've had and talked with people who have had similar problems with
older versions of JDOM embedded in app servers.
I am willing to bet you are using IBM's WebSphere.
In any case, I tend to blame the tool vendors not JDOM for this.
JDOM Beta 7 was released on 07.07.2001 - almost five years ago. Tool
vendors need to do a better job of keeping up to date or providing
patches for situations like this.
As far as the API changing goes, if we where talking about a released
version (like version 1.0) I'd agree. It should be stable, but we are
talking about beta version here.
Betas are not supposed to locked down. The very notion of beta means
the code is influx and being refined. Sometimes those refinements
mean API changes. Developers and tool vendors should anticipate that
beta versions might not be backwards compatibility and take the
But it is definitely frustrating. It seems like at least some of the
big tool vendors just doesn't pay enough attention to important
details like this. I think they should. Unfortunately, it is often
easier to use a different library than get the tool vendor to do the
right thing. And that's a shame, especially in cases like JDOM which
I find really useful (not to mention easy to use).
On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Phil Weighill Smith wrote:
> We've actually moved away from using JDOM for the reason that our
> products have to work with various web and app servers. A number of
> these servers actually use old (e.g. 0.7) versions of the library
> are not API compatible even against the version (0.9) that we were
> and would have issues simply because they expose the library to
> web applications.
More information about the jdom-interest