axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Glyn Normington" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/src/org/apache/axis/message
Date Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:34:50 GMT

Thanks for the explanation! I don't think it's appropriate to challenge the
JAX-RPC javadocs for such a triviality - especially as QName might perform
a bit better being final.


                      Butek/Austin/IBM@        To:         
                      IBMUS                    cc:                                       
                                               Subject:  Re: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/src/org/apache/axis/message
                      11/04/02 14:08                         
                      Please respond to                                                  

I can explain this one easily enough, Glyn.  JAX-RPC's javadocs and
jaxrpc-APIs.jar show QName as a final class.  So we made it final in our

We can always fight this if you think it's appropriate.  The JAX-RPC spec
itself doesn't say anything about QName.  Probably because QName has been
defined in other locations by other specs and there's a stirring of people
to coalesce all these disparate QNames into one.  I wonder whether the
other QNames are final?

Russell Butek

Glyn Normington/UK/IBM@IBMGB on 04/11/2002 04:48:26 AM

Please respond to

Subject:    Re: cvs commit: xml-axis/java/src/org/apache/axis/message


Although I can speculate about why you changed PrefixedQName so that it
delegates to QName instead of extending it, I'd be interested in *your*

My rationale for using extension was that there could easily be cases where
it would be necessary to use a PrefixedQName where a QName was required,
e.g. as a parameter to a method. I applied the "is a" test and decided that
PrefixedQName is a QName.

I wouldn't mind your change if I understood and agreed with the rationale.



View raw message