Re: Datatype interface extension

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

That's fine by me.

--On 11 September 2001 17:14 -0700 Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI 
<kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com> wrote:

>
>> Are you saying that the allowed arguments of the isValid() method on the
>> Datatype interface depends on the return value of the
>> isContextDependent()  method on a separate interface? That doesn't seem
>> right to me. The Datatype  interface should be semantically
>> self-contained.  I think the  isContextDependent() method must be on the
>> Datatype interface.  This isn't  so bad, as it's potentially useful for
>> other applications independently of  the Datatype compatibility spec.
>> The getIdType() can be on a separate  CompatibilityDatatype interface.
>
> Then I think it's OK to have all methods (including getIdType()) on the
> Datatype interface.
>
> Implementing the getIdType() method is easy (just return ID_TYPE_NULL)
> and so it's very easy for datatype libraries to support it.
>
> If they are separate, processors need type checking and casting to call
> the getIdType method. I guess less optional features are better.
>
>
> We've added the createStreamingValidator method, which is arguably an
> optional feature, into the Datatype interface. So I think it's OK to
> treat the getIdType method in a similar way.
>
>
> regards,
> --
> Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI                          +1 650 786 0721
> Sun Microsystems                   kohsuke.kawaguchi@sun.com
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>