I think we've probably done this topic to death. I don't know if this is customary procedure, but I'm going to do it anyway :) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below are two items to vote on. The first is about what names classes should have. The second is about building a generic, reflective XPath implementation. Your vote may be -1, 0 or +1, -1 being a vote against, 0 being neutral and +1 being a vote for. The results will be tabulated and the result implemented*. Item 1: Class Names =================== Currently, the Jaxen class hierarchy looks like this: org.jaxen.JaXPath org.jaxen.BaseXPath extends JaXPath org.jaxen.dom.XPath extends BaseXPath org.jaxen.dom4j.XPath extends BaseXPath org.jaxen.exml.XPath extends BaseXPath org.jaxen.jdom.XPath extends BaseXPath There are currently two main propsals as to what these should be renamed as. In both cases, JaXPath and BaseXPath are combined into org.jaxen.XPath. Please place a vote for both proposals individually. Proposal 1: Preserved Case -------------------------- In this proposal, the case of the original object model's name is preserved. org.jaxen.XPath org.jaxen.dom.DOMXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.dom4j.Dom4jXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.exml.ElectricXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.jdom.JDOMXPath extends XPath Vote: Proposal 2: Pascal Case ----------------------- In this proposal, the case of the original object model's name is converted to lower case, except the first letter of a word in the name. org.jaxen.XPath org.jaxen.dom.DomXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.dom4j.Dom4jXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.exml.ElectricXPath extends XPath org.jaxen.jdom.JdomXPath extends XPath Vote: Item 2: A Generic XPath implementation ====================================== It has been suggested that it would be cool if Jaxen had an object model-agnostic implementation that determined which implementation of Navigator was appropriate for an object passed to it by examining it's class, rather than having to have selected an object model when constructing the XPath.It has been determined that this functioality could be added with a subclass of org.jaxen.XPath (as suggested in Item 1). The downside is that it would be quite a bit less efficient, since it involves reflection and type checking each time an expression is executed. Question: Should a Generic XPath be implemented? Vote: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thanks for your participation. David * Disclaimer: Whether the results get implemented is at the sole discretion of the developers with CVS write access and this referendum may be completely ignored if it's results disagree with the personal beliefs and practices of said individuals _______________________________________________ Jaxen-interest mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jaxen-interest
