Re: [Libxmlplusplus-general] Parser abstraction

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Christophe de Vienne wrote:

>>again, would you derive your dom parser privately from the sax parser,
>>i.e. would you use 'derived from' in terms of 'implemented by', I would
>>(possibly) agree.
>>
> 
> 
> Well, after rereading this long thread, I changed a little bit my mind on the 
> Parser abstraction, although I still have the feeling we should keep it.
> If the two parsers doesn't have the same semantic as far as what they produce, 
> their parse_xxx methods do have exactly the same semantic, so why not having 
> them in a common interface, even if in 99.00% of cases polymorphism will not 
> be used.

the dom parser's 'parse' method(s) returns a document, the sax parser's 'parse'
method returns nothing. How's this semantically the same, or equivalent ?

(ok, I'm excluding the case where you have to assemble the document from chunks
  here)

> Keeping it would permit, for exemple, to make an adaptator to be able to parse 
> from a new type of source which would be working for both parsers.

I don't understand that. You are still talking about code reuse, right ?

Stefan