tyler at infinet.com
Mon Nov 16 18:47:13 GMT 1998
Michael Kay wrote:
> >Yes, but how do we accomplish this? Do we invent a new package name
> >for SAX 1.0.1 to avoid collision?
> I suspect we have to - unless someone knows a better way. Given that parsers
> include the SAX interface classes in their distribution, we don't really
> want people to have several different definitions of the same interface on
> their classpath.
> Are there any other areas where you can get multiple implementations of the
> same Java interface from different suppliers? If so, how do they solve the
> version control problem? Or have we achieved a first?
I think the simple thing to do here is to simply extend the interfaces (this will
work in Java, but I am not so sure about other languages, particularly scripting
languages who have no concept of OOP in them) and add new functionality to the
new interfaces and deprecate the old interfaces.
Nevertheless, this approach is very sloppy IMHO (look at the development of the
AWT since JDK 1.0) even though it usually does get the job done. But then again,
as far as I can tell, it will only get the job done in Java )-:
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