Re: Re: [RfC] XML_Serializer

Hi Jan, I'm not the one writing the code, so if Stephan feels that it is important to make sure that it isn't possible to ever change the functionality in the future in order to control inputs, then a static method is the answer. My opinion is that extendability is important, and that inputs are still controlled even with this ability to extend, but that is my opinion. Greg Jan Schneider wrote:

Zitat von Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>:

I'm a big +1 for an XML_Util class, although I'm not a big fan of static methods for this class, it should be possible to extend them. XML_Util should be small and simple, any extra functionality should be implemented in child classes like XML_Transformer_Util (which is why static methods wouldn't be good). This is to prevent dependency bloat.

Why do you think you can't extend a class with static methods? I think this class is a perfect example of when it makes sense to use static class methods. Jan. -- http://www.horde.org - The Horde Project http://www.ammma.de - discover your knowledge http://www.tip4all.de - Deine private Tippgemeinschaft