[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@microsoft.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: Prakash Yamuna <techpy@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:55:29 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=Paz0wLp6pGGyUaCUaVQYlbfF1z4MpUwvz2Sx/dBA3ZeO25gMGMVlP0k6x2Gm2bI3P7AJ6NzWhgogg/sJ66fL1IhM2RjeHoS+QxEcpAp1IIl/gju7LMrh7CAVZ07Dg9Md0jviAkYZs9q7w0jWNQyZgPI2/agn6VPEwk3J+Ry7T1c= ;
- In-reply-to: <E1D2HVP-0006Sb-00@ukmail1.eechost.net>
You are right Michael.
It seems to be a hazard of our profession:-(
The question that comes to my mind is how do other
disciplines (engineering and non-engineering) evolve
in a fast changing environment?
Comparisons to civil engineering or manufacturing
processes, etc to me don't seem to be very accurate to
describe the issues we face.
But I always end up with a feeling that there must be
better way for things to evolve. The current approach
of "CAN'T TOUCH INTERFACES" - is I feel flawed - how
do you evolve in such an environment?
prakash
--- Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> > Of course the thought that Source may evolve -
> maybe
> > wishful thinking on my part:-(
>
> Sadly Java seems to have got itself into the hole
> that interfaces cannot
> evolve - or at least if they do, it causes serious
> disruption. I've had to
> do major reengineering of Saxon to keep it working
> across JDK 1.4/1.5
> because of changes to the DOM interfaces. (Though if
> this hastens the death
> of the bloated monster called DOM, I won't be
> sorry.)
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
|
