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

James Clark jjc at
Sun Jan 4 00:30:58 GMT 1998

David Ornstein wrote:

> >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? 

In C++ I can't see any need for a base class separate from the
interface. You can just have a single class which provides empty
definitions for all virtual functions.


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