Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: Michael Kay <email@example.com>, 'Dare Obasanjo' <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: Prakash Yamuna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:31:34 -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=B6ARrVwevbZ55J2lqDVF6sBN/wzvu7vIdErfsDNCWmQBGLL4Bq7FufQR0tWS1Ki2nTdDUBrNaTxH4dNebvB2nDo4LWK5HXSPusEo97Pr7Ig6tbeiQduS3sQlAHN0/yCAtA51b30RCqwR72LVM5eU6QJA6et0I/ujGJc4Y/YQEnw= ;
- In-reply-to: <E1D2IAoemail@example.com>
Well I am not sure if that helps thing too much - a
few years ago I used to look at Microsoft APIs that
provided hundreds of ways (ok may be I am
exaggerating) with minute differences to do very
similar things and my feeling was that the Microsoft
APIs were so bloated because they had to support the
old way of doing things and the new way of doing
things and everything in between!
I mean if I look at the APIs defined in Java - I see
hundreds of APIs with huge number of methods on each
Having defined this huge API dinosaur - then we go in
and say can't change interfaces/APIs - at best you can
keeping adding and bloating if up futher!!
Good Lord are we setting ourselves up!!
--- Michael Kay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > But I always end up with a feeling that there must
> > better way for things to evolve. The current
> > of "CAN'T TOUCH INTERFACES" - is I feel flawed -
> > do you evolve in such an environment?
> I find it surprising that one can't add a method to
> an interface with a
> default implementation, making it more like an
> abstract class but still
> allowing multiple inheritance.
> Michael Kay
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around