#21 Need XMLFilterImpl enhancement

Bob Kerns

XMLFilterImpl doesn't implement the newer interfaces
such as DeclHandler or LexicalHandler.

By analogy with DefaultHandler2, an XMLFilterImpl2
could be added, but as well as I can see at this hour
of the night, this would be just so these interfaces
can remain "optional". I don't think they should be
optional going forward, so I don't see a need to
proliferate new classes to perform the same
fundamental job.

So my recommendation would be to add these interfaces
directly to XMLFilterImpl (and to DefaultHandler, and
deprecate DefaultHandler2).


  • Anonymous - 2002-05-25

    Logged In: YES

    Seems fair to me for filters to support those new interfaces.

    But at this point I'm not going to change the model where the
    "helpers" are independent of the "extensions". That did
    get discussed a while back, and the consensus was to
    not take that approach.

    If that model were to change, then "DefaultHandler2"
    would likely just vanish (as with some of the other
    classes in the "extensions 1.1 alpha").

  • Anonymous - 2002-05-25
    • labels: 340835 -->
    • milestone: 172551 -->
    • status: open --> open-accepted
  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO

    I second Bob's frustration ... I just wanted to add a CDATA, but it is not
    trivial, since I can't just "extend" XMLFilterImpl.

  • Nobody/Anonymous

    Logged In: NO


  • Anonymous - 2003-07-13

    Logged In: YES

    Marking as "won't fix" for the reason explained in my last
    comment. It's not that it's a bad idea, though.

  • Anonymous - 2003-07-13
    • status: open-accepted --> closed-wont-fix

Log in to post a comment.

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks