DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980 XMLStringPool is not useful as a base class ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-17 15:14 ------- Hi Dave. Good point about the virtual calls--apparently I had to overload everything when I did XMLSynchronizedStringPool. But source code compatibility is a binary proposition; either we are or we aren't; we can't "minimize the source code compatibility problems". In fact, we can't even add pure virtual functions to existing interfaces, since that will break implementors. So even if we added a getURIStringPoolBase() or some such, we'd still (a) have to continue to support the existing method and (b) keep the new method non-virtual. So this is exactly why we circulate new interfaces as widely as possible before adding them to source, and make sure people get a good look at them before we bless that source... The best I think we can do here is open up the implementation of XMLStringPool to make it more amenable to derivation. Would it help you if all the data members became protected, for example? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
