[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>>I think we've all implicitly agreed that Source is pretty
>>useless.
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.
cheers
Bill
|
