Folks, My 10 cents is that it is not right to add methods to the spec API classes.
My view would be that compliance would require spec-defined classes to provide the spec, the whole spec and nothing but the spec. This is certainly the approach to compliance taken for most Java APIs. It's OK to have officially defined extension points - the classic one is the interface / implementation split - but in general, if some object is supposed to be an implementation of the spec, then that is all it should be and implementation details should not affect using applications.
Compliance is still much of a blank sheet for both SDO and SCA - but I will certainly argue along these lines when compliance becomes a significant matter in the OASIS TCs that are about to form....
Yours, Mike. Pete Robbins wrote:
Michael, An interesting set of questions! I'm not convinced that adding methods to the spec api classes is a compliance issue (in fact it may be impossible to implement without modifying the spec apis ... constructors etc.) but it could be a portability issue if it is not clear that the methods are implementation specific.
<snip> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
