[jdom-interest] SAXHandler's Stack to be protected ?

philip.nelson at omniresources.com philip.nelson at omniresources.com
Wed Aug 22 20:30:27 PDT 2001

> > > Just keep in mind, as more of the implementation is 
> exposed, that JSR-102
> > > is
> > > not just an implementation, but also a specification.  
> That is, a subclass
> > > that conforms to the specification should interoperate with any
> > > implementation.
> > >
> Yes, that's an issue, and the principle reason I don't like making
> things protected willy-nilly.  Brett made the decision on the 
> SAXHandler
> changes.  I'm hoping he kept the specification aspect of the change in
> mind.  :-)

I don't have a strong feeling on this but before I resurrected Ken's factory
code you may recall I was suggesting that we went to protected class
variables to make subclassing easier.  I came to the conclusion that
whenever I may think I need to subclass SAXBuilder and SAXHandler, in
reality it would probably be easier to just use these as a cut and paste
source for my own specialized class.  Face it, if you are specializing a
builder, you probably know if you are using a particular parser, know what
you need in terms of an XMLReader and the various interfaces it implements,
and can throw out 2/3 of what SAXBuilder and SAXHandler provide you.  Won't
always be the case but seemed to be the case for me.

OK so now SAXHandler has a stack and available namespaces as part of it's
specification.  I can't quite seem to get a handle on how much this would
really matter.

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list