[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@jxml.com>
- To: "David Megginson" <david@megginson.com>, "Gabe Beged-Dov" <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:04:06 -0500
>Event-based programming existed before people started encapsulating
>events in structures or objects. I'd define SAX as an event-based API
>that reports events using callbacks.
But why are we not taking advantage of having the events as objects?
I've tried to second guess why this is so, but I think the arguments in
favor of object-based events is stronger: the added overhead is balanced
by greater simplicity and subsequently less overhead in other areas; the
added flexability adding additional utility to all conformant code.
Take for example the DOMParser. It subclasses InputSource to play some tricks.
And because InputSource is an object, this lets us use DOMParser with
filters that never ever considered having InputSource be anything other than
what was provided with SAX.
The same will be true of SAX2, if events are objects. It will dramatically increase
the utility of all the conformant code!
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/ 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)
|
