SAX: do we want a base class (was Re: SAX: towards a solution)
jjc at jclark.com
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 ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev