• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing"
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 01:39:26 +0000
• Cc: Michael Kay <mike@s...>, Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>, Neeraj.Bajaj@S..., Chris Burdess <dog@b...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1042DAC47@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1042DAC47@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> So given the choice of methods that take useless interfaces (since they
> have to cast to get anything useful) and APIs with lots of overloaded
> methods that support a rich set of data sources, why would you think the
> former is better? 

Because it'll be more elegant to add metadata onto Source objects than 
continue with parametric polymorphism. It's hard not to conclude a 
fundamental abstraction is missing when a class has that many overloaded 
calls.

cheers
Bill

• Follow-Ups:
  • What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3"Fast and Easy XML Processing")
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing"
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: choice, sequence, all: 'easy' XML Schema question
• Next by Date: RE: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing"
• Previous by thread: RE: Article on JAXP 1.3 "Fast and Easy XML Processing"
• Next by thread: What should TrAX look like? (Was: Re: Article on JAXP 1.3"Fast and Easy XML Processing")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread