On Monday 02 February 2009 17:51:25 Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > and just weaken the conditions. The > > components simply check for an ContentHandler/LexicalHandler as they > > require. With this approach you let the decision to the developer if he > > like to simply inherit from the X-Interfaces and has an > > SAXPipelineComponent, a ContentHandler and so on at once or do it on his > > own. WDYT about this approach? > > Hmm, not sure :) Seems like a wrong compromise to me :) Either we really > want these interfaces for symmetrical reasons (which I think is not > worth doing it and given the different between the formats itself > doesn't help) or if we want the simplest approach for each type (xml, > dom, stax). I would vote for the second approach.
I'm still the opinion that it may help newcomers to jump into cocoon if they find a common interface-structure between all components. But on the other hand a newcomer would work with the AbstractTransformers (mostly) and not directly with COMPONENT-Producer/COMPONENT-Consumer... Finally all my counter arguments for removing SAXC/SAXP are said and discussed. I still like them but I've no problems with removing them :) . If nobody else has any problems with it we could continue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COCOON3-22 Thank you Carsten for taking the time to discuss this topic with me. Andreas
