XOM API for Processing XML with Java

["Trimmer, Todd" <todd.trimmer AT trizetto.com>]

OK, this sounds like the right amount of conservatism. I won't be able to
make a solid case for making them public until after 1.0, anyway. I might be
able to get away with using Serializer. As long as when I call
write(Element) I am not forced to use nu.xom.Serializer's  way of traversing
to sub-content, I should be fine.

Todd Trimmer

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo AT metalab.unc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:40 PM
To: Trimmer, Todd
Cc: 'xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org'
Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] Three cosmetic patches


At 9:49 AM -0700 2/12/04, Trimmer, Todd wrote:

>So I have to ask why XOM extension writers have to be forced to use the
>Serialzer interface to get to this power? My serializers will still take
>arguments like Element, Attribute, etc., but won't necessarily write them
in
>a purely atomic fashion, the way nu.xom.Serializer does.


They aren't public mainly to keep from cluttering the API. Plus there 
may be some assumptions abut how and when they the methods of 
TextWriter are called and used that aren't currently enforced 
directly in the TextWriter code. I'd have to check. If there were a 
good use case for directly accessing this stuff, I'd consider making 
them public, though probably not till after 1.0.
-- 

   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