Christopher Lenz wrote:
Am 12.12.2003 um 10:23 schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, either add DynamicConfiguratorNS or revert the change I made yesterday to DynamicConfigurator.
I'm more inclined to add DynamicConfiguratorNS.
Same here. Proposed interface:
public class DynamicConfiguratorNS {
public Object createDynamicElement( String namespaceURI, String prefix, String localName);
public void setDynamicAttribute( String namespaceURI, String prefix, String localName, String value);
}
We could instead use SAX style: public class DynamicConfiguratorNS {
public Object createDynamicElement(
String namespaceURI,
String localName,
String qualifiedName); public void setDynamicAttribute(
String namespaceURI,
String localName,
String qualifiedName,
String value);
Where namespaceURI, prefix and localName have the same semantics as in DOM Level 2:
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/dom2-javadoc/org/w3c/dom/Node.html
The only issue is that in SAX it seems that not specified Namespace URI is an empty string and not null.
I don't think this interface should extend DynamicConfigurator. The only effect would be that implementors also would need to implement the old two pair of methods.
+1 Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
