xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Re: [XOM-interest] hasChildren vs. getChildCount == 0

From: Bill de hÓra <bill AT dehora.net>
To: Dirk Bergstrom <dirk AT juniper.net>
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu>, xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org, jcowan AT reutershealth.com
Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] hasChildren vs. getChildCount == 0
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:05:34 +0000

Dirk Bergstrom wrote:

On 2004-02-05 04:18, i claim that Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

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.

-1

I have a firm preference for hasChildren(). It encapsulates
knowledge in the correct place, which is the object, not the caller.

I'd rather see effort put into getting rid of the need for childCount ;)

Bill de hÓra

Re: [XOM-interest] XOM 1.0d23 Last Call , (continued)