• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• To: David Ornstein <davido@p...>
• Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 06:33:53 +0700

David Ornstein wrote:

> >I am also assuming that we will provide not only a callback interface,
> >but also an (optional) base class with stub methods that implementors
> >can override as needed; that means that novice users will not have to
> >implement all of SAX, even if we do end up with nine or ten methods.
> 
> This worries me.  My interest is in implementations of SAX-clients in C++.
> Will I have, as part of somebody's SAX implementation that I'm using, this
> (optional) base class available to me too? 

In C++ I can't see any need for a base class separate from the
interface. You can just have a single class which provides empty
definitions for all virtual functions.

James



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)
    • From: David Ornstein <davido@p...>

• References:
  • SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)
    • From: David Ornstein <davido@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX: Error Reporting (question 4 of 10)
• Next by Date: Re: SAX: External Entity Resolution (question 3 of 10)
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)
• Next by thread: Re: SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread