Joe --
I think when you're designing a whole framework like DTM, interface
based design makes a lot of sense and is definitely the way to go. Here
we're talking about a single class to implement a variable stack. I
just don't see that many people taking the trouble to implement it in an
entirel
>Scott, what do you think about making this an abstract class instead of
>an interface?
How about an interface plus an abstract base class that can be used as a
starting point by implementations?
Example: DTM is an interface, DTMDefaultBase is an abstract base class,
iteration is layered on top
Gary L Peskin
cc: (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Gary L Peskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you think about creating a _qn field
> > in VariableStack that would be a QName array.
>
> I would rather not. The variable stack itself is very clean now and I
> would rather keep it that way. I don't think a pe
Gary L Peskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about creating a _qn field
> in VariableStack that would be a QName array.
I would rather not. The variable stack itself is very clean now and I
would rather keep it that way. I don't think a penalty should be imposed
for the (forgiv
Scott --
I've been working on the Variable stuff for a couple of days and I had a
thought for you to ponder. What do you think about creating a _qn field
in VariableStack that would be a QName array. It would go hand-in-hand
with _sf and hold the QName represented by the corresponding _sf entry
I'm about to check in org.apache.xpath.operations.Variable.java that has a
rather nasty hack. The issue is that extensions are building their xpaths
on the fly, so they don't really have a chance to fix up their index lookup
for the variable stack (this problem caught me a bit by surprise). The
