[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
- To: "'xml-dev@ic.ac.uk'" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:50:18 -0500 (EST)
Ingargiola, Tito writes:
> Why is interface ModHandler empty? Presumably, (an implementation
> of) ModParser is going to need to call methods on its handlers as
> it goes about its business . Will it somehow know that for
> ModHandlers which implement, say, namespace processing, that it
> should call a particular method (I won't even attempt to suggest
> what that method might be :-)?
Maybe it will help if I walk through a silly example. Here's the
interface:
public interface PingHandler extends org.xml.sax.ModHandler
{
public abstract void ping ();
}
Here's how I register it with a ModParser:
try {
parser.setHandler("com.megginson.handlers.ping", pingHandler;
} catch (SAXException e) {
System.err.println("Parser does not support Ping handlers");
}
Here's part of my PingParser class:
private PingHandler pingHandler;
public void setHandler (String handlerID, ModHandler handler)
throws SAXNotSupportedException
{
if (handlerID.equals("com.megginson.handlers.ping")) {
pingHandler = (PingHandler)handler;
} else {
throw new SAXNotSupportedException("Unknown handler type: "
+ handlerID);
}
}
In other words, if the class recognises the handlerID, then it will
know how to cast it; if it does not, then it should throw an
exception.
The ideal design pattern for this is the Chain of Responsibility
pattern, where we have a series of filters between the application and
the actual XML parser, all of which support the ModParser interface;
if a filter does not recognise a handler type, it can pass it back to
its parent, and only the root parser actually throws a
SAXNotSupportedException.
> In java, empty "marker" interfaces appear:
>
> 1) for pieces of "silent" functionality like Cloneable and
> Serializable where a standard interface simply doesn't apply, or
> 2) where the variety of types of applications which will
> need to have a formalized contract with some piece of functionality is so
> broad that it is prohibitvely difficult to define the appropriate method
> signatures for that interface; extended interfaces are expected to
> proliferate (e.g., EventListener & friends).
>
> It seems to me that SAX is clearly not a case of 1), and while it
> may be a 2), it isn't obviously so.
It looks to me like it hits both quite nicely.
> I'm afraid that ModHandler's current (suggested) definition is
> too open-ended -- it may encourage interoperability problems. The
> key virtue (in my opinion) of SAX is that it allows me to plug an
> arbitrary parser into the front of my XML processor and I'm nearly
> guaranteed that if it's IBM's or J. Clark's or whomever's, it's
> going to work. A marker interface inside the parser seems to me to
> threaten this happy state of affairs...
Not really -- you're guaranteed the same level of interoperability as
before (because the full SAX 1.0 Parser interface is still there), but
now there is a standard, layer-able method for adding new handler
types and for determining whether they're supported or not. People
have been expanding SAX anyone, and I just want to provide a nice,
clean method for doing so.
If I had something like
public interface ModHandler
{
public abstract void event (String eventID, Object eventArgs[])
throws SAXException;
}
then I'd put the burdon of casting onto the application (many times)
rather than the parser (once).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@megginson.com
http://www.megginson.com/
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)
|