Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 24988 invoked from network); 8 May 2004 16:13:36 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 May 2004 16:13:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 34512 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2004 16:13:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 34454 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2004 16:13:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 34439 invoked from network); 8 May 2004 16:13:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.s-und-n.de) (212.8.217.2) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 May 2004 16:13:25 -0000 Received: from notes.sundn.de (ntsrv5.sundn.de [10.10.2.10]) by mail.s-und-n.de (postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA3419F5C1 for ; Sat, 8 May 2004 18:13:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hw0386 ([192.168.2.31]) by notes.sundn.de (Lotus Domino Release 6.5) with ESMTP id 2004050818053961-22927 ; Sat, 8 May 2004 18:05:39 +0200 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: AbstractSAXTransformer Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 18:16:01 +0200 Organization: S&N AG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <409CFA23.5090501@gmx.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcQ1Do+02LWwVEcqRMKgBvNfY8ZRCAACRcvw X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 6.5|September 26, 2003) at 08.05.2004 18:05:40, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 6.5|September 26, 2003) at 08.05.2004 18:05:41, Serialize complete at 08.05.2004 18:05:41 Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes, deprecating seems to be a good idea. I think we should think of refactoring this (and other parts of Cocoon as well) for the next minor release (2.2). Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:joerg.heinicke@gmx.de] > Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 5:18 PM > To: dev@cocoon.apache.org > Subject: Re: AbstractSAXTransformer > > On 07.05.2004 09:56, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >>The ability to buffer is not obvious from the name. While it's > >>implicite for the AbstractDOMTransformer it is not for AST. > That's why > >>I did not search for buffering inside it. > >>Furthermore with recording into DOM it provides the same > functionality > >>like AbstractDOMTransformer - or even more as it allows to record > >>document fragments. > > > > I think, AbstractDOMTransformer is only a legacy > transformer to easier > > port components from Cocoon 1.x. > > Ok. What about deprecating it then - following our new guide > lines of course. > > >>Now does this not call for a refactoring? When writing my > transformer > >>I also found the transformer class hierarchy very confusing. First > >>there should be a most simple AbstractSAXTransformer that does not > >>more than forwarding all SAX events. A subclass > >>AbstractBufferTransformer could do most of the work > >>AbstractSAXTransformer and AbstractDOMTransformer do at the > moment. A > >>FilterTransformer could do the filtering. And so on. > >> > >>There are at the moment 27 transformers extending > AbstractTransformer > >>instead of AbstractSAXTransformer though every transformer > handles SAX > >>events as input and output. The class hierarchy shall reflect that > >>IMO. > >> > > > > Not sure, if this is better than what we have. The main idea of the > > AbstractSAXTransformer is to make the development of Transformers > > easier, so it provides a lot of useful function. > > If you use them (know them), writing a transformer is a > piece of cake. > > For the name: yes, it is a misleading one, but we shouldn't > change it > > just for elegance reasons. > > So, for compatibility, I think we should leave everything > as it is. If > > there is really a need we could start a refactoring while > leaving the > > old ones untouched. But to be honest, I personally don't see a need > > for it. > > Maybe I'm just to refactoring friendly for a public project > :-) But clear names often can replace missing documentation > and makes the usage often more easy. > > Joerg > >