• From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:52:49 +0100

Bill la Forge wrote:
> 
> >Why not permit the application to bind an instance to perform the respective
> >operations. It's more powerful and no harder to implement or to use?
> 
> At one level, that's what we are doing with filters in MDSAX. But it gets awkward
> to use at the next level up.

I undersand this. I don't understand the advantage which expressing the
effective delegation indirectly through symbolic options values has over
expressing it directly through explicit delegates. If one wants to delay the
binding or turn that over to the factory, then pass class names instead of
instances. ?


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
    • From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by Date: infoworld article on xml
• Previous by thread: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Next by thread: Re: Why SAX needs namespace support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread