Leo Sutic wrote: > > > I don't see the usefulness of making the > > Configuration object into a DOM. > > And I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting, however, that the primitive > types one can store as values should be extended with a DOM node type. The > DOM should not be traversable via the Configuration interface. > > What I am talking about is a getValueAsDOM () method. It is the _value_ that > is the DOM node. The configuration node has no children. > > Regarding resource usage: If you do not store any DOM nodes in the > configuration the overhead is zero. If you do, you pay on a per-node basis. > That price may be high, but as we both know it is rarely paid.
I still don't see what this buys you. What specific problem does this solve that cannot be solved from the Configuration interface? I still maintain that the costs associated with this approach outweigh the benefits. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
