• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: Bill la Forge <b.laforge@j...>
• Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 09:50:47 -0500

Bill la Forge wrote:

> This would force the use of fully qualified names and create
> name conflicts for programmers used to simply importing
> the classes being used.

I suppose if you use "import org.xml.sax.*;" then you have
a problem, yes, because you can't just add "import org.xml.opensax.*;"
to it.  But if you import individual class names it's no problem:
if you use opensax.Parser, you never need to refer to sax.Parser
any more, since it is subsumed.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@c...
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• References:
  • Re: Are we ready to resolve the Mod??SAX name?
    • From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>

• Prev by Date: ANNOUNCING SAXON 4.1
• Next by Date: Periodic plea
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we ready to resolve the Mod??SAX name?
• Next by thread: RE: Are we ready to resolve the Mod??SAX name?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread