Next Round

[Rob Schoening]

>
>
> Do we munge all of this with inheritance, or keep a series of separate
> mix-and-match interfaces?
>
>
> Comments?

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.

Rob


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;
(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)