Alex & Scott

You do realize that sourceforge is not very reliable at archiving its mailing lists:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=7101&max_rows=25&style=ultimate&viewmonth=200506
Parts of your discussion are missing...

Is this just a case of refactoring package names?

In JBoss4 I can see both package names but the org.jboss.xb stuff is more complete
with some duplication across the packages.

I'm going to see whether I can create a compatibility layer for now
by making org.jboss.xb classes that extend org.jboss.xml.binding in head.

I'm only going to do enough to get the MC tests working in jboss4.

This is just a temporary solution such that I can get my stuff backported.

"adrian@jboss.org" wrote:

I'm going to see whether I can create a compatibility layer for now
by making org.jboss.xb classes that extend org.jboss.xml.binding in head.

Another issue is whether the system properties in Marshaller should be
org.jboss.xml or org.jboss.xb

I'm going to leave them in org.jboss.xml to be compatible with JBoss4,
but we should probably accept both?

Comment by Scott from the dev list:

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 15:59, Scott M Stark wrote:
The jboss-head version was going to be updated to the same org.jboss.xb
> as the jbossxb the latest classes in 4.0. The legacy (4.0.2 version) is
> what exists in the org.jboss.xml. It could just be easier to refactor
> that in head.
>
> adrian@jboss.org wrote:
>
> >Is this just a case of refactoring package names?
> >
> >In JBoss4 I can see both package names but the org.jboss.xb stuff is more complete
> >with some duplication across the packages.
> >
> >I'm going to see whether I can create a compatibility layer for now
> >by making org.jboss.xb classes that extend org.jboss.xml.binding in head.
> >
> >I'm only going to do enough to get the MC tests working in jboss4.
> >
> >This is just a temporary solution such that I can get my stuff backported.
> >
>