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 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-17 17:20 ------- I wasn't implying that source code compatibility is not binary, I was simply saying you could minimize the impact by creating a new abstract base class, and using that solely in the interface of XMLGrammarPool, and in the interfaces of the internal classes. So, I wasn't pushing for a "getXMLStringPoolBase()" call on XMLGrammarPool, I simply was suggesting you could change all the references to XMLStringPool in XMLGrammarPool to XMLStringPoolBase. That way, anyone using XMLStringPool would still be using a concrete class, not an abstract one. Although I appreciate your desire to maintain source code compatibility, sometimes it _should_ be sacrificed to clean up design problems, because the advantage to the improvement of the design outweighs the small pain suffered but those who will be affected. And I suspect that is a very small number of people. XMLStringPool is not useful for my purposes because it requires IDs be assigned in sequential order, and that's a very serious limitation. But making the data members protected might be useful for future users who can live with that restriction. But, for the future, you should consider that making abstract base classes depend on concrete classes in this way can really limit how --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
