James, > OK lets say its specific to your model - its not part of XPath 1.0
And I won't try to push it further either. It was a fun exercise though, and it showed me that the jaxen/saxpath code is not difficult to work with. Tribute to the designers! > I think I'd rather leave this change for an XPath 2.0 version of Jaxen (if > ever we do that). XPath can be confusing enough without us > merging together bits of different versions ;-) >From a community point of view I guess you're right. > > We should let the java method signature decide if the it should be called > > once for the whole node set or once for each node in the set. E.g. a > > function call like foo(a/b, 1) would call a method > > public static List foo(List, int) once for the whole set, while it would call a method > > public Object foo(int) once for each node in the set and collect the > > results. > > Yes. You're able to create your own FunctionContext with whatever > Functions > you wish available with whatever semantics you choose. In this way both > models can easily be supported in a well defined manner. It seems almost all languages that interface with java has functionality for dynamically finding and invoking java methods from a set of arguments. There should really be one agreed upon and shared mechanism for all projects! Hallvard _______________________________________________ Jaxen-interest mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jaxen-interest
