On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:33:49AM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I'm sure everyone has seen this thread on fop-users. Any particular > preferences on one of the two options I listed below? The first will > require coordination with Batik as they are supposed to migrate to that > class and it's basically their version. We used a modified version of > theirs. The second is probably cleaner but since the change is > backwards-incompatible for any ElementMapping implementation (Barcode4J, > for example), this is not to be taken lightly. I think the first is > easier, should not have any side-effects but feels more like patchwork.
The first option sounds fine with me. > > I see two possible routes: > > 1. Adding an optional parameter to the Service class' providers() method > > which allows to return class names instead of instances. This will > > restore the previous behaviour and maintain backwards compatibility with > > the existing ElementMapping implementations. > > 2. Change ElementMapping's constructor to accept the namespace URI as a > > parameter and call initialize() right after that. Drawback: It's a > > backwards-incompatible change. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu