SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)

David Megginson ak117 at
Sat Jan 3 17:37:19 GMT 1998

David Ornstein writes:

 > >I am also assuming that we will provide not only a callback interface,
 > >but also an (optional) base class with stub methods that implementors
 > >can override as needed; that means that novice users will not have to
 > >implement all of SAX, even if we do end up with nine or ten methods.
 > This worries me.  My interest is in implementations of SAX-clients in C++.
 > Will I have, as part of somebody's SAX implementation that I'm using, this
 > (optional) base class available to me too?  How about people working in
 > other languages (somebody mentioned tcl, for example)?  I'd assume not.

Thank you for your feedback.  Right now, I am proposing SAX as two
core interfaces (one for the parser and one for the user event
handlers), together with an optional base class.  Some OO languages do
not support interfaces, in which case the interfaces themselves will
have to be implemented as an abstract base classes.

I'm afraid that I do not understand why would it be difficult to
implement the XmlAppBase base class in, say, C++, Perl5, or iTcl as
well as Java?  I am certainly not depending on any Java-specific
behaviour in it (there is no dynamic type checking or class loading).
My goal is to design SAX to work in any OO language.

All the best,


David Megginson                 ak117 at
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins at

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list