Berin Loritsch a �crit :
>
> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >
> > Berin Loritsch a �crit :
> >
> > I agree with you, W3C DOM APIs are painful to use. But don't you think
> > that by adding namespace in Configuration, and then selection by
> > namespace and then... , you will end up with a yet another java-friendly
> > equivalent to DOM when there are already JDOM and DOM4J ?
> >
> > DOM4J's nice interface-based design can be mapped on about anything
> > (there are great examples in the distro), even on data structures where
> > you cannot travel up in the hierarchy like Configuration. So what about
> > a DOM4JConfigurable interface and two adapter classes to wrap a
> > Configuration as a DOM4J and a DOM4J as a Configuration to ensure
> > compatibility with existing code ?
>
> Can I remind everyone right now that you can't pass a DOM4J node to a
> Configurable object? I am trying to pass child configuraiton objects
> to Components, and I don't want to have to propose a new Configurable
> interface called DOMConfigurable to pass Nodes. That is rediculous.
> The addition of the Namespace class will allow me to use the _existing_
> framework, yet solve my problem. The Namespace objects are cached, and
> their resources are managed.
>
Wow, ok, ok ! I perfectly understand that. I was expressing my feeling
that with Namespaces in Configuration, new needs will certainly appear
that will require some of the features already present in DOM-like APIs.
But maybe I'm wrong...
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
