> I wouldn't want to start a religious war, but - IMHO - it would be > better to stick to a single naming convention, either Decl or > Declaration and use it consistently everywhere.
I completely agree. > Otherwise we'll always > be wondering if we're typing things correctly... This would be more my problem than the users. :-) As a user, the PSVI interfaces should be the only ones to interact with. But I have to deal with both sets of names when implementing the interfaces. > To solve Interface/Implementation ambiguities you could use an > additional Intf/Impl suffix (as it already happens in several places). If we had had this API when we were implementing schema support in Xerces-2, we'd definitely have done so (sticking to a single naming convention, and using "Impl" suffix for implementation classes). Unfortunately, we are doing it in the reversed order. The implementation classes have been there for more than half a year, and I don't know how many people are using them. (I know a few who use the element/attribute/type implementation classes.) I'm not sure whether renaming these classes would break those people. (And renaming would lose the CVS check-in history.) More input/comments/suggestion on this issue would definitely be helpful. Thanks, Sandy Gao Software Developer, IBM Canada (1-905) 413-3255 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
