Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dvholten AT computer.org
  • To: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Antwort: Re: [XOM-interest] hasChildren vs. getChildCount == 0
  • Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:32:03 GMT

i dont know the actual implementation, but i would guess, that a call to
hasChildren() can get
the requested result faster than a getChildCount, which has to determine
the exact number of childs.
i propose to investigate on the usage-pattern of hasChildren() , and then
decide.

dvholten






Janek Bogucki <janekdb AT yahoo.co.uk>
Gesendet von: xom-interest-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
09.02.04 15:12


An: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
Kopie:
Thema: Re: [XOM-interest] hasChildren vs. getChildCount == 0

--- Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>

+1 to remove hasChildren().

-Janek





___________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80
http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
_______________________________________________
XOM-interest mailing list
XOM-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/xom-interest






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page