[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Prakash Yamuna" <techpy@yahoo.com>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- 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" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:13:11 -0800
- Thread-index: AcUWBllUr4bqkiVCS6WF2xiMztxVFQAAIWRQ
- Thread-topic: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: [xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
Interfaces don't evolve. This is one of the significant disadvantages
they present over using abstract classes. Any addition to the Source
interface breaks every single class that implements it since they won't
have those methods.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
There is always one more bug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Prakash Yamuna [mailto:techpy@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:08 PM
To: Dare Obasanjo; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: Re: [xml-dev] What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re:
[xml-dev] Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing")
I don't think I am disagreeing with you on the benefit it brings to the
table today. I am just disagreeing on the benefit it MAY bring in the
future. [That is where I don't quite connect with your statement on it
being similar to java.lang.Object]
Of course the thought that Source may evolve - maybe wishful thinking on
my part:-(
prakash
|
