ModSAX (SAX 1.1) Proposal

[Don Park]

David,

>What exactly do you mean by a "module"?


A feature by a different name and from the feature provider point of view.
I could have just as well used "Feature" instead of "Module".  I just
assumed that the "Mod" in "ModAX" was for "Module".

>In general, we don't have get* methods for org.xml.sax.Parser -- is
>there a special reason that we need one here?


It is just my style, ying and yang sort of thing.  I did not see any
compelling reason not to have it and there are some benefits such as chain
(as in chain of responsibilities) management.

>It certainly looks cleaner than checking a lot of boolean return
>values, and it provides stronger compile-time checking as well.


True if the feature in question is mandatory.  Code ends up a little messier
if the feature is optional.  If I just wanted to install different handler
types depending on whether a feature is available or not, we end up with
many try-catch islands.

Anyway, I like your latest proposal.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse



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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)