From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [jsr110-eg-disc] QName (COMMITTERS PLEASE READ)
Russell Butek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE:
[jsr110-eg-disc] QName (COMMITTERS PLEASE
READ)
Sam,
Since you're not 1.0, and theoretically
people shouldn't be relying on
this behaviour in your implementation, the
answer is, there's no
compelling reason to support it, but it's a nice to
have in case anyone
actually was relying on it.
I just piped up because I
thought it was an "obvious" alternative, and
works out better in that the
localPart wouldn't end up in an illegal
state through attempting to use the
old Axis form.
--Wes
-----Original
Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday,
June 20, 2002 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
[jsr110-eg-disc] QName (COMMITTERS PLEASE READ)
Wes Moulder
wrote:
> Ya'll might not like me stepping in here, but I have
two questions
> about this:
>
Hi Wes! You are always
welcome here.
> a) isn't a local part of "one:two"
illegal?
>
I would think so...
> b) Why
not make your QName do both from the valueOf()
method?
>
I'm a bit concerned about how code that depended
on this feature would
react if, some how, another implementation of this
interface were to be
picked up in the classpath. Is there a compelling need
to support this
other syntax?
> It should be trivially
easy to figure out which one of the two forms
> the string is in, and
since a : is illegal in an NCName (what the
> localpart is defined as), it
shouldn't be difficult to figure out
> which form it's
in.
>
I agree that technically it would not be
difficult.
- Sam Ruby
