• From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:13:37 +0100

John Cowan wrote:

> 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.

Without even considering the technical merit, this strikes me as a good way 
encourage unsuspecting programmers to introduce errors.  I vote no.

-- Ron Bourret


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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Multi-valued attributes
• Next by Date: What a tangled web!!! XML and related specs
• 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