Hi Andy,
Yes, I think the literal value should go down the pipeline, but I don't see
why the expanded value needs to. I agree the expandSystemId method should
acquire a new home though.
Is this something you can live without, or is this a must-have for you?
Cheers,
Neil
Neil Graham
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Andy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/28/2002 01:49:47 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE�: [Xerces2] Missing API Changes
Neil,
You don't think it's important to have the literal system id for the
externalEntityDecl or unparsedEntityDecl? I do. It should be expanded
and passed along. Currently the code that does that is in the
impl.XMLEntityManager class. But it's just a static method and I think
perhaps we should have a xerces.util class for this of some kind.
-AndyC
-------- Message d'origine--------
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: lun. 28/01/2002 13:21
�: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Objet: Re: [Xerces2] Missing API Changes
Hi Andy,
I'll undertake to make change #5 you suggest--since it's just
adding a
constructor there won't be much propagation necessary! :-)
I'm not sure I agree with change #3 though; in these situations
I don't
think it ever makes sense to have the literal system Id
expanded, since
there won't be any external decls referenced from these
entities. That's
why I left these callbacks out of the big changes--save
ourselves an URI
expansion where we can...
Besides, this change *would* require a fair bit of propagation,
to make
sure the XMLResourceIdentifiers were being initialized correctly
etc.; it's
one I'd like to avoid this late in the game...
what do you think?
Neil
Neil Graham
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Andy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/28/2002 01:14:07 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: [Xerces2] Missing API Changes
With the impending release of Xerces 2.0.0, I'm seeing a bunch
of little
things that need to be fixed in XNI and the implementation. For
example:
1) xni/Augmentations
This interface is missing a way to iterate over items in the
augmentations list. To keep naming consistent, I would suggest
the
following:
int getKeyCount()
String getKeyAt(int index)
2) xni/XMLAttributes
Missing a getAugmentations method. Every other piece of
information
associated to an attribute (e.g. returning an attribute's type)
has
three methods: one that takes the attribute index as a
parameter; one
with a String qname; and one with a String uri and localpart.
The
augmentations information is missing the qname method. So either
add it
or only put a get method with the index parameter like
isSpecified and
getNonNormalizedValue.
3) xni/XMLDTDHandler
There were a bunch of changes to go through the code and use the
new
XMLResourceIdentifier interface where it made sense. (Thanks for
applying a bunch of my changes, Neil.) But there's still some
more
places where it should be used to be consistent. For example,
the
externalEntityDecl method still passes three separate String
parameters
instead of the new interface. We should be consistent. Same with
the
unparseEntityDecl method.
4) xni/parser/XMLConfigurationException
The constants that distinguish between not recognized and not
supported
are defined to be the same value! Oops! Probably my fault when I
first
added this interface but I don't have any way of doing updates
at the
moment so I would appreciate if someone made this change for me.
5) xni/parser/XMLInputSource
Since we added the XMLResourceIdentifier interface, it might be
nice to
use this in the constructor and/or add a method to all of the
publicId,
systemId, etc. values to be set at once by passing an
XMLResourceIdentifier.
6) Copyright notices
All of the source files should be updated to include 2002 in the
copyright years in the Apache License at the top of the source
file.
7) Version information
All of the source files should be updated to remove the
"@version Stubs
generated by DesignDoc ..." line from the class/interface
comment.
8) Implementation
It goes without saying that all of the XNI changes I have
suggested need
to propagate throughout the source code. But I don't have the
time or
resources at this time to check to make sure that there aren't
additional problems in the implementation. I don't think that
this is
too bad, though, as long as we are still passing all of the
comformance
tests. I am just concerned with getting XNI into a good solid
state
before the release. If we have to change it in the future, fine,
but
let's try not to -- I think our users will be happier if we
don't need
to change anything on them in the future. :)
Okay, that's all for now. I'll be posting at least one more
message to
the list soon. Type at you later...
-AndyC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(See attached file: winmail.dat)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=?iso-8859-1?Q?winmail.dat?=
Description: Binary data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
