> Serialization doesn't have to have anything to do with beans. The fact > that they used 'serializable' is just an artifact of their implementation.
a) For me serialization does have to do with beans b) If XML serialization support for beans comes along, and I know many have requested it, this will create a confusion in names > > xmloutput seems redundant, unless we should > > consider xminput. > > I was only using xmloutput because it was similar to xsl:output. I'm not > in love with either of my suggestions. I just find 'printer' to be > confusing and not very descriptive. I think printer and parser match, but how about just output? I guess formatter is not descriptive enough either. What would be the opposite of parse, by the way? arkin > > -scott > > > Assaf Arkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > e.com> cc: [email protected], > (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus) > Sent by: Subject: Re: [Proposal] Printer > package > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > office.com > > > 11/15/99 03:34 > PM > Please respond > to xerces-dev > > > > > I don't think this is a good assumption. In my view we are making > > components, which should be standalone. For instance, Xalan is useable > > without any parser at all, though this tends to be an unlikely scenario. > > It is certainly designed not to have tight coupling with Xerces. > > I took that into account, I can certainly imagine someone using Xalan > without Xerces and then the dependency becomes a problem. The design > right now is that you can download the printers separately of any given > DOM and use them. > > Possibly: > > * Xerces only distribution + printers/utility classes > > * Xalaon only distribution + printers/utility classes > > * Combined distribution > > (Yes, I don't like this approach, am looking for better solutions) > > > > or can obtain the > > > printer/utility packages separately. > > > > Not sure what you mean by this. > > Download a separate package containing just the code under > org.apache.xerces.printer and use it. You need DOM and SAX in the path, > but you don't need the parser. > > > What do you think about changing the package name from .printer to > > .serializer or .xmloutput or the like? > > I like printer better ;-) xmloutput seems redundant, unless we should > consider xminput. serializer is out of the question. If you want to > really serialize documents that would probably fall under the scope of a > different product (e.g. how to serialize Beans and not just DOM?) > > > We'll also need a raw text output. I can adapt my FormatterToDOM to use > > straight SAX, so this won't be a problem. > > That's a boring printer, so I left it for last ;-) > > arkin > > > > > -scott > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CTO http://www.exoffice.com > Exoffice, The ExoLab Company tel: (650) 259-9796 -- ____________________________________________________________ Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO http://www.exoffice.com Exoffice, The ExoLab Company tel: (650) 259-9796
