RE: [xsl] User defined SAX ContentHandler

["Aron Bock" <aronbock@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see this as unfeasible, at this point.  And its usefulness is not in 
question, either.  However, if you could fit this in as a [conceptual] layer 
above SAX, you could probably come up with some sort of a mapping layer 
between SAX events, or a sequence of SAX events, and a call to a business 
method.  That mapping layer could itself be an XML description, and given 
that, the whole mess could probably be compiled to some form so performance 
isn't terrible.

--A


> From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [xsl] User defined SAX ContentHandler
> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:51:00 +0530
>
> Hi All,
>
> W3C defines specific methods witihn a SA ContentHandler like
> startElement(), endElement() etc... that would be called back when
> elements are encountered within the XML Document.
> User overrides these methods to define the logic within each of these
> callback methods.
>
> As an alternative, what if the User defines explicit methods like
>
> public void startEmployee() [simplified here- ignoting namespace mappings]
> public void endEmployee()
> public void onEmptyAdddress()
> public void onAttr_Employee_Name() [this is just illustrative of the
> attributes scenario.]
>
> Advantage
> -----------------
>
> Cleaner separation of logic.
> <<add here>>
>
> Disadvantages
> ---------------------
>
> No Clear contract.
> <<add here>>
>
> This is only an ilustrative subset of the functionalty.
> What do you folks think of this ? Is this a better alternative ?
>
> rgds,
> Menon

_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/