chris at tech.com.au
Thu Apr 15 10:13:58 PDT 2004
Bradley S. Huffman wrote:
>>But if the necessary methods were at least protected rather than
>>private, at least it could be worked around without jumping through hoops.
>But you have a solution that doesn't require a modification to the API and
>doesn't expose methods which may or may not be needed/or exist in the future.
>You just don't think it's "proper".
Come come now, that is a real crap solution. The Content handler would
have to have it enabled, then temporarily disabled, then enabled again.
Furthermore, I can't control all the different ContentHandlers that
would be plugged into this class library, so I'd have to proxy the
entire class with its 15 or so functions.
All because somebody doesn't want to have a TWO LINE fundamental
building block function that would write an Element to SAX? That's about
as basic and fundamental feature as I can possibly imagine.
>I on the other hand think it would be confusing to have a output(Document)
>which calls startDocument like the SAX spec. says to, and a output(Element)
So call it something else!!
More information about the jdom-interest