Carsten Ziegeler pisze: > Now, to be honest, I find the whole situation not very comfortable at > the moment. There are only a few contributing to C3 and nearly no other > comments. My intention is to have a small, nice and easy, pipeline api > which allows me to build sax pipelines. And I want to have as less > dependencies and as less stuff in their to make it understandable as > possible. I don't think that the symmetrie to the other implementations > helps us. But that's of course my personal opinion. I think we (Steven, > you, the Vienna-based students and myself) have a opinion and I guess it > is based on/influenced by our experience and we are somehow stuck in our > thinking. So it would be great if others could voice their opinion.
Not only to just add one more dimension to the problem and discussion space I would say that I disagree with both standpoints. This may come from the fact that I see things from completely different angle. Before I post any in-depth comments I still have to digest all the e-mails that have been posted while I've been having a break. What already has stroke me is that people seem to agree that having various *AbstractGenerator, *AbstractTransformer, *AbstractSerializer classes is a good thing. I may miss the point completely but this looks like a code and structure duplication. Could someone enlighten me on why do we need different abstract classes? My very own guess for answer is that our Pipeline API is too weak (in terms of constraints it enforces) so no meaningful abstract class can be provided. This is what I'm not comfortable with for a long time but others seems to not see this as a problem important enough. And yes, I could resist to bring back this issue into discussion. -- Best regards, Grzegorz Kossakowski
