XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu>]

At 2:14 PM -0500 2/2/04, jcowan AT reutershealth.com wrote:

> 1) I'm now going to argue that hasChildren should be removed in favor of
>    using getChildCount() == 0.  In a proper JIT they should be exactly
>    the same at run time, and it's really trivial to write one's own
>    method hasChildren(Node n) if you must have it.


I sort of like hasChildren(), but when I marked it package protected 
in the code, hardly anything broke except a few unit tests that were 
testing hasChildren(). None of the samples broke, which is telling. 
Therefore I'm leaning toward removing it. If anyone wants to argue in 
favor of keeping hasChildren(), speak up now. In fact, if you have an 
opinion either way, let me know. Whose in favor of hasChildren, and 
who thinks it should go? The question on the table is whether we 
should delete hasChildren. Vote now.

--

  Elliotte Rusty Harold
  elharo AT metalab.unc.edu
  Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
  http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA