Elliotte, This is the wrong discussion group for this sort of thing, but I have to provide a counter opinion here.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 4:09 AM Subject: Re: renaming elements > I've never quite understood the objection to the class hierarchy in > JDOM > as opposed to interfaces. Interfaces are perhaps marginally more > extensible, but I've seen through experience that the vast majority of > developers don't need the extra flexibility of interfaces, ever, > especially when you remember that subclassing is still an option in > JDOM's class-based hierarchy. Those few developers who do need the > extra > flexibility of interfaces, don't need it most of the time. Interfaces are a powerful and necessary construct. Just because DOM is too complex does not mean interfaces are bad. On the other hand, interfaces can be abused, which may be the point you are trying to make here. >From the postings, it appears that the problem that people are facing is that XML and DOM are languages, just like Java. Until you work to build an application, Java is as complex. Same way, it takes work to go from a fully generic tree structure (XML) to something useful. The solution may be to build canned libraries on top of Xerces. Just like Swing. Maybe if JDOM was conceptualized as the 'Swing for DOM', it would explain why people find it easier to work with JDOM as opposed to DOM. Just like we find it easier to work with and understand Swing as opposed to the graphics primitives in the AWT. Regards... Milind Gadre ecPlatforms, Inc 901 Mariner's Island Blvd, Suite 565 San Mateo, CA 94404 C: 510-919-0596 F: 815-352-0779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
