On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > It is fine to split packages into the official API classes, and > > supporting classes. However, it is not fine to say that there can > > be only one "official API classes" package for a given spec (eg, DOM > > Level 1). > > I agree. But the interface classes should in all cases be exactly the same...
Perhaps I am naive, but I don't see why. The API's of these classes should always be the same, but different implementations _of the API classes_ are possible. Or perhaps we just disagree on wording. I am taking "interface classes" to mean the classes that define the official API, which includes actual Java interfaces, but also Java classes. If by "interface classes" you mean the classes that are actual Java interfaces, I may agree. However, that's largely irrelevant, since the API's include more than Java interfaces. Let me be specific by giving a (silly) example: the Java language binding for DOM Level 2 contains a concrete class DOMException. Although it is trivial, there is more than one way to implement it. If some DOM implementor wanted to write his own DOMException and have his code use it, that should be allowed. Andrew
