Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Berin Loritsch a écrit : > > 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
