> and will effectively create a "chicane" in your
> system.
Spoken as a true car enthusiast... Still with your STi? :-)
>> It seems that some form of architecture document would be useful :-)
+1. But that is unfair, as I won't write it.... But the more you can
write the easier it will be for other people to help...
- eduard/o
Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2005, at 9:34 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>> Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>
>>>> My concern is that such a method imposes a concurrency requirement
>>>> on all implementations of the interface.
>>>
>>> Only if you require implementations to be thread safe. Since you
>>> don't like this either, you can just state that as part of the
>>> definition of the API. I think it is OK to do that.
>>>
>>
>> I was envisaging that encoding algorithms could be registered with
>> multuple parsers instances (and types of parser) (so can external and
>> initial vocabularies).
>
>
> Ah, I see. Personally, I think that would be a bad idea since it will
> require synchronization and will effectively create a "chicane" in your
> system.
>
>> It seems that some form of architecture document would be useful :-)
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> -- Santiago