Okay, well, I think i'm going to wrap the XML transcoder within my
own code for the time being and move to an LCP transcoder in 2.6.0.
I see that I'd gotten it stuck in my head that LCP == system code
page, instead of a sort of curried XML transcoder.
Adam Heinz
Senior Software Developer
Exstream
On Jun 18, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Adam Heinz wrote:
You're right, "has a" makes a lot more sense.
I'm going to have to wait for the next point release to use
mTranscoder, but where can I find this LCP adapter? A couple
greps didn't turn it up.
The MacOSLCPTranscoder in the current code _is_ the adapte
Hrm, or maybe a CP transcoder than LCP could extend, but wouldn't
be hardwired to the system code page.
Adam Heinz
Senior Software Developer
Exstream Software
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e
You're right, "has a" makes a lot more sense.
I'm going to have to wait for the next point release to use
mTranscoder, but where can I find this LCP adapter? A couple
greps didn't turn it up.
An adapter will certainly get me past my current development
issues, but that doesn't soothe the interfa
On Jun 18, 2004, at 10:43 AM, Adam Heinz wrote:
I see that are both LCP and non-LCP are implemented using the same
TEC structures (transcoders), but I meant more in an object hierarchy
sense -- since the core implementation is similar, why not build
one transcoder that fulfills both LCP and non-LCP
