DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980 XMLStringPool is not useful as a base class [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-16 19:50 ------- Hi Neil, Thanks for the comments, but let me try to make my point more succinctly. It is difficult for anyone to do their own rendition of any abstract base class that depends on XMLStringPool. In my case, that class is XMLGrammarPool, but there are others as well. As to your comments about XMLStringPool being concrete for performance reasons, can you give more details about what performance benefit(s) you expect? As far as I can see, the entire public interface is virtual, so virtual calls will always be necessary, even if XMLStringPool is a concrete class. If you are worried about source code compatibility, then create a new base class called XMLStringPoolBase, derive XMLStringPool from that, and change the interfaces to use XMLStringPoolBase. That would minimize the source code compatibility problems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
