Peter Donald wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 01:04, Berin Loritsch wrote: > >>Peter, you mentioned in another thread that the DefaultConfigurationBuilder >>was altered in a way that broke your code. I think you even included a >>ClassicConfigurationBuilder to provide a compatibility layer. >> > > yep ;) > > >>Looking back >>(hindsight is always 20/20) we should make the DefaultConfigurationBuilder >>the NamespacedConfigurationBuilder, and promote ClassicConfigurationBuilder >>to DefaultConfigurationBuilder. >> > > Or maybe we could just pass a boolean into DefaultConfigurationBuilders > constructor indicating whether it should be namespace enabled or not. > > If you are going to make changes I also wouldn't mind renaming > ClassicSAXConfigurationHandler to SAXConfigurationHandler and > SAXConfigurationHandler to NamespaceSAXConfigurationHandler
Didn't that diff arive yet saying *exactly* the same thing? I will commit it in the morning if all are in favor (it's on my machine at work). ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
