[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON3-22?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andreas Pieber updated COCOON3-22:
----------------------------------
Attachment: StAX-classes.png
I'm not quite sure what I should think about this idea. On one hand it would
eliminate not really required interfaces which is quite a good idea, but on the
other hand it would (IMO) also create complexity on an other side. I attached a
very simple class diagram of the cocoon-stax component. If you replace StAX (in
the names) with Image you'll see the base architecture of the image-component
proposed by Steven. Replacing StAX with SAX would produce the very basic
architecture of the cocoon-sax module. And replacing StAX with any other name
will (hopefully) produce the base architecture of any other future pipeline
module.
So, if you're familiar with one component (e.g. StAX) you can very easily
transfer your knowledge to any other component, since the basic architecture
(NAMEProducer, NAMEConsumer, ...) is the very same throughout all components.
From that point of view it may be a better idea to rename XMLConsumer and
XMLProducer to SAXConsumer and SAXProducer instead of removing them.
Of course I'm not sure in how far this assumption will hold for all future
components...
WDYT about that?
> Remove XMLConsumer interface
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: COCOON3-22
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON3-22
> Project: Cocoon 3
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: cocoon-sax
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha-1
> Reporter: Carsten Ziegeler
> Assignee: Cocoon Developers Team
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha-2
>
> Attachments: StAX-classes.png
>
>
> Remove XMLConsumer interface; relying on a content handler which might
> optionally implement lexical handler is sufficient and simplifies the module
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
