On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:50:44PM -0700, Glen Mazza wrote:
> I agree; however we are none the worse off for Simon's
> SAXParser example, and we even got a more powerful
> DefaultHandler object in our API as a bonus.
> 
> Glen
> 
> --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I simply think that the
> > Transformer pattern is very
> > universal and quite easy to use and understand.

My reason for insisting on the SAXParser example is that it can be
programmed with only knowledge of the javax.xml.parsers package, and
no knowledge of javax.xml.transform. People with no experience in
embedding transformations may find a SAXParser example easier to
apply. That was my own situation until this thread.

Regards, Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl

Reply via email to