[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Prakash Yamuna wrote:
> 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.
This is backwards. The question is not what the models need. the
question is what the engines consuming the source need from the models.
If this can be standardized, then the models can provide it. For XPath
and XSLT what the engines need is pretty well defined. For other
uses--XPath 2, schema validators, XQuery engines--perhaps it's not so
clear, but maybe we could come up with something.
> But over time as things mature and our understanding
> increases - the disparate models, implementations can
> come to an understanding on what their needs would be
> - at that point Source can evolve further and there
> can be more meat to its interface.
>
> But because of the fact all the models decided to
> adhere to Source - they will support this much heavier
> interface.
That's very unlikely to happen. Adding methods to an interface breaks
all existing implementations of the interface, and this has something
Sun has been singularly unwilling to do in the past. If there is a new
interface, it might be a subclass of Source, but supporting it will be
far from automatic.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
