Ted Leung wrote:
> Okay, this is convincing and I don't see another way around this.
> So I guess we have to add the methods to the default configuration.
So which of the following two choices seems better? The first
choice is cleaner because in the second option you still have
that parse(XMLInputSource) method from the base interface. I
think that it could lead to some confusion about which to use
and how they interact. However, the second option is nice
because you know right away if your configuration supports
pull parsing. In the first choice, you can't really know if
the configuration is able to perform pull parsing.
CHOICE 1: Change XMLParserConfiguration Interface
- parse(XMLInputSource)
+ setInputSource(XMLInputSource)
+ parseDocument(boolean):boolean
CHOICE 2: Extend XMLParserConfiguration Interface
+ interface XMLPullParserConfiguration : XMLParserConfiguration
+ setInputSource(XMLInputSource)
+ parseDocument(boolean):boolean
> I think that we should have one of these as well for the API that Alek and
> I are discussing.
If we have pull-parsing capability built into the parser
configuration interface *and* expose it in the parsers,
then we don't need this property. However, if it's only
exposed in the configuration and *not* in the parser
instances, then we need something like this. Which one
are you thinking is better?
--
Andy Clark * IBM, TRL - Japan * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
