• From: "Rob Schoening" <rschoening@u...>
• To: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>,"XML" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:10:13 -0800

> On the other hand, as long as a ParserFilter can be constructed with a
> null Parser, it can be subclassed to subsequently set the parent.


I'll second this.

It's easy to get boxed in when too much code gets initialized in the
constructor.  Often I find that code is in the constructor not because it
belongs there but because it makes issues of immutability plainly obvious.
But this gets difficult when you try to implement a non-trivial inheritance
structure.  I have found that this can be especially frustrating (at least
in Java) since constructor calls to super() must precede all other code in
the constructor.

Rob


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: SAX: Next Round
    • From: "Bill la Forge" <b.laforge@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Question on ANY (its use in RDF)
• Next by Date: Re: Why informal specs usually win
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX: Next Round
• Next by thread: RE: Word and XML (was: XML standards coherency and so forth)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread