[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on
I find Source more useful - sure it is very light weight and has little value. But what it has done is put a stake in the ground so to speak. Everybody who implements Source will adhere to the interface. This becomes very useful from an evolution perspective. The reason it is underspecified is a lot of models have disparate needs and there has been no common agreement on how they can expose it. But over time as things mature and our understanding increases - the disparate models, implementations can come to an understanding on what their needs would be - at that point Source can evolve further and there can be more meat to its interface. But because of the fact all the models decided to adhere to Source - they will support this much heavier interface. The comparison to .NET interfaces may not be very meaningful because the considerations may be different in my mind. As you mention the consideration in the .NET design was usability (in terms of less lines of code). The consideration for Source may also include varied implementations and how they can still provide certain guarantees (even if these are actually non-existent today) - when you are designing such a system it is best to underspecify rather than overspecify. Disclaimer: I don't claim I understand .NET interfaces - so please feel to ignore my comments. prakash > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul R Brown [mailto:prb@f...] > Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:14 AM > To: 'XML Developers List' > Cc: 'Elliotte Harold'; Michael Kay > Subject: Re: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: > Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing") > > > I also go so far as to say that the discussion is a bit misdirected: > the apparently poor encapsulation of Source is more of a > symptom of the fact that TrAX transformers (e.g., XSLT > processors but potentially STX or XQuery or...?) need to be > able to implement their underlying model however they so > choose. Source is little more than a marker interface, and > the thing that makes sense (at least to me) is to have > off-the-beaten-path Source implementations (e.g., for a pull > parser) exhibit enough polymorphism (implement SAXSource, > DOMSource, etc.) to make them useful and reasonably portable > for consumption by different Transformer implementations. Marker interface is a synonym for design flaw. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM No matter how long or how hard you shop for an item, after you've bought it, it will be on sale somewhere cheaper. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|