Re: org/w3c/dom duplicates in lib-dom-java and lib-openxml-java,libxerces-java!
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 20:48, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:54:52PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> > But it might indeed be "good" to place the interface classes in a
> > seperate jar/package... this would enforce that the implementation *does*
> > implement the actual interface, and not some look-a-like...
> I may have misunderstood what you meant in my previous message, so
> let me clarify.
> It is fine to split packages into the official API classes, and
> supporting classes. However, it is not fine to say that there can
> be only one "official API classes" package for a given spec (eg, DOM
> Level 1).
I agree. But the interface classes should in all cases be exactly the same...
as required in case of org.w3c classes (see Andrew Pimlotti message)...
And just these imterface classes can be placed in a seperate package...
like lib-interface-dom-java ... lib-interface-*-java may only contain classes
of type interface the Java Policy would say...
There should be only one official API (interface classes) but the
implementation ofcourse not... but those classes "implement(s) SomeInterface"
as the Java source code would tell...
But since in many cases both the interface as the implementation is within
the same namespace, org.w3c for example, this is not easy to achieve...
> Different packages should be allowed to supply their own
> versions of DOM Level 1 classes. Perhaps they should provide a
> common virtual package and use the alternatives mechanism. However,
> I think they should not conflict.
I agree... we would not want to enforce program to be able to work with all
implementations... maybe ideally, but definately, not workable yet...