OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Articleon

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

>>I think we've all implicitly agreed that Source is pretty 

I don't seem to be getting all the mail in this thread, but to whomever 
said that, please count me out of your consensus.

> The 
>>primary argument in its favor has been a lot of hand waving 
>>and pointing 
>>at some .NET thing, and saying, "That's even worse" but 
>>nobody's really 
>>stepped up to defend Source on its own merits.

Well, I said that the .NET approach is missing an abstraction. I'm 
willing to speculate that when that abstraction is found it will look 
like a Source object, but with a means of reading off metadata that the 
polymorphic approach is calling out explicitly.

Mike is right - Source is a better basis for this kind of API, it's just 
not fully baked in Saxon today.

>Michael Kay wrote:
> Only, I think, by forcing the "arbitrary model" to implement some kind of
> standard interface like SAX or DOM - and that would defeat the whole
> purpose, even if it were an improved SAX or an improved DOM.

I think you could also work off a dictionary approach. Personally I'd 
rather start evolving from a cast than 20 overloaded methods. Every time 
I see a cast I see a query for more information.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS