xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java
List archive
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment
- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo AT metalab.unc.edu>
- To: Nils_Kilden-Pedersen AT Countrywide.Com
- Cc: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:50:27 -0500
At 9:22 AM -0800 3/26/04, Nils_Kilden-Pedersen AT Countrywide.Com wrote:
I still believe that you should think of some way to make it explicit,
because there are use cases for both scenarios.
If booleans are unacceptable, go with an enumeration, i.e.
detach(Node.PRESERVE_BASE_URI), or something like that.
That's not going to happen. Wrong side of 80/20. Excessively configurable APIs are confusing, hard to learn, and hard to use. I will pick one approach or the other. Anyone who needs the alternative behavior can simply call setBaseURI after detaching the node. The question is what's the more sensible default.
--
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
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
Grant Wood, 03/26/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
Elliotte Rusty Harold, 03/26/2004
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
jcowan, 03/26/2004
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
Bradley S. Huffman, 03/26/2004
- Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment, Elliotte Rusty Harold, 03/26/2004
- Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment, Elliotte Rusty Harold, 03/26/2004
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
Bradley S. Huffman, 03/26/2004
-
Re: [XOM-interest] Preserving base URIs on detachment,
jcowan, 03/26/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.