Hi there, Just as Chinthaka was saying OMAttribute was a child of the OMNode (OMNamedNode to be exact). However this was changed later with the immutable attribute concept (Samething that happened to OMNamespace). Since the removal of the OMAttribute from the hierarchy some other changes are still pending
1. OMNamedNode is not needed now 2. Certain Node types are not used anymore However I am not very happy with this change. Yes, it may have reduced the size but OMAttribute is no longer a node now. This means that it cannot be put into a node link list and we are stuck with old ArrayLists to hold the attributes! My guess is we should think of these changes in a more serious manner so that our structures remain consistent and elegant On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:06:52 +0600, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ashutosh, > > > > > > Sent this mail, but could not see it delivered, so resending. My > > apologies if you receive multiple copies. > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I see that we have a separate OMAttribute class, and OMAttribute is > > treated differently from other node types. > > OMAttribute was a derived class of OMNode, earlier. That was a wrong > decision and later we changed that to the current state. There was a thread > on that in this mailing list. > > > But, at the same time in > > OMNode class also we have a field to set the Node Type as > > ATTRIBUTE_NODE. > > I think we should remove that. This was a thing slipped through the last > change. > > -- Chinthaka > > >How are these two different and why can't we just go > > with the OMNode class? > > > > > Ashutosh > > -- Ajith Ranabahu
