Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Prakash Yamuna" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:18:59 -0800
- Thread-index: AcUV/ei1eCRsshPZSY+llP9DXvxQiQAAPH0g
- Thread-topic: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prakash Yamuna [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:07 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re:
> [xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
> I find Source more useful - sure it is very light weight and
> has little value.
> But what it has done is put a stake in the ground so to speak.
> Everybody who implements Source will adhere to the interface.
What interface? If you get something that implements Source, all you
know is that you can ask it for its System identifier. How is that a
useful contract to enforce? I might as well just accept java.lang.Object
and ask for its type which is how most APIs that accept Source as input
have to work anyway.
> This becomes very useful from an evolution perspective. The
> reason it is underspecified is a lot of models have disparate
> needs and there has been no common agreement on how they can
> expose it.
Translation: Source isn't any more useful than just using
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
No matter how long or how hard you shop for an item, after you've bought
it, it will be on sale somewhere cheaper.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no