rschoening at unforgettable.com
Wed Jan 20 23:06:35 GMT 1999
> Do we munge all of this with inheritance, or keep a series of separate
> mix-and-match interfaces?
Mix and match interfaces tend to be instructional as "facets" that group
sets of functionality. If nothing else, they make the API easier to
understand. However I have found that the actual ability to mix and match
tends to be more of a liability than an asset in an API this small. If the
facets are not merged together into a hierarchy, I'm afraid the
proliferation of interfaces will frustrate the user.
If the mix and match approach is to be successful, I believe that it should
be hidden for ordinary use through some kind of aggregation. This would
necessitate either 1) multiple inheritance of interfaces or 2) language
specific abstract classes.
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