Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Berin Loritsch a écrit : > > > > 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. > > > Wow, ok, ok ! I perfectly understand that. I was expressing my feeling > that with Namespaces in Configuration, new needs will certainly appear > that will require some of the features already present in DOM-like APIs. > But maybe I'm wrong...
No. The same rules that apply to Configuration objects now will apply for the forseeable future. I do not want YAD (Yet another DOM). I don't want the ability to traverse up or down the Configuration tree. That is also the weakness of JDOM or DOM4J as a configuration medium. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
