Reinhard Poetz wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> Reinhard Poetz wrote: >>> I wanted to write a mail about this today, funny. My usecase is that I want >>> to >>> replace Xalan by Saxon. >>> >>> Am I right that creating a cocoon-xalan module would be the best solution >>> for >>> this because it would make it possible to exclude it at POM level. >>> >> Yes, this is one solution :) Making an own module for both, Xalan and >> Saxon, has the advantage that this module would depend on Xalan or Saxon >> and then you get these libraries automatically in your project as well. >> >> If it's just a configuration issue, like setting a specific value for a >> bean, then we could just provide a property reference. Which means, if >> switching from Xalan to Saxon is just changing the name of the factory, >> we could just make the factory configurable through a well-defined property. > > This would work if we hadn't the "xalan" transformer, wouldn't it? > Hmm, yes and no :) Our xslt transformer implementation uses an xslt processor. So we can define a "static" xalan xslt processor together with a "static" xalan xslt transformer. And we can define a "dynamic" xslt processor (configured through properties) with an xslt transformer always using this "dynamic" xslt processor.
Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
