xml-dev - Re: Why SAX needs namespace support

["Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@jxml.com>]

>I undersand this. I don't understand the advantage which expressing the
>effective delegation indirectly through symbolic options values has over
>expressing it directly through explicit delegates. If one wants to delay the
>binding or turn that over to the factory, then pass class names instead of
>instances. ?


The advantage of using instances over class names is configurability.
This becomes particularly important when the configuration is data driven,
rather than hard-coded.

(Guess I'm just a wantabe Lisp programmer. But I'm doin' it with Java and
XML, so the distinction between code and data becomes important. And class
names preclude all this.)

So what I'm leaning towards, for the production release of MDSAX, is the
use of configurable parser factories. It was left out of the beta, because everyone
seems to have their favorate way to create parsers (SAXON, SAX, Coins).
I want to provide a mechanism, but without precluding alternatives. And I didn't
want it to be a barrior to the early adoptors for MDSAX.

Bill


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