Before i talk about the problem, Eran, i see that we are still creating the OMDocument and setting the first ELEMENT_NODE as its rootElement. - isn't it?
The problem as i understood: There are stuff other than root element (envelop) that need go as children into the OMDocument object. Currently this is not possible because OMDocument isn't designed to contain anything other than rootElement. Possible solutions: 1. Make OMDocument to extend OMNode, and move the addChild* methods from OMElement to OMNode. I think this is preferable becaus the addChild, getChild sort of methods seem more natural to OMNode than OMElement. OMElement can have addChildElement etc, if needed. 2. Make OMDocument to extend OMElement, but i think this is an overkill, because the Document object isn't really an XML element. I didn't understand why we need Object or OMContainer as parent. May be i'm missing something. - venkat On 4/12/05, Eran Chinthaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2005 12:58 PM, jayachandra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi devs! > > > > Currently OMNodeImpl has the data memeber 'parent' of type OMElement. > > This appears problematic. Because for document level comments (i mean, > > comments that are present outside the root element in the XML > > document) parent becomes OMDocument rather than OMElement. So better > > have the 'parent' data member as Object. And accordingly the return > > type of getParent will be Object. I hope this change will not break > > any existing code, will it??? > > This will not break any of the code. But this will add some bad > things, IMHO, to code. For example, anything can be a parent of any > node, even a Text node. > That was the main reason why, we purposely made parent to an OMElement. > > I understand your concern, but ............ > > And there is another question coming from me, is it necessary to > provice the ability to add comments to the Document which is even out > of the document element ?? > > Making this available is of not that useful, but will add some weird > look to the code. > > We earlier had the concept of OMDocument, but later removed it. > > For your all information : These days all the Sri Lankan people have > gone home to celebrate our Sinhalese new year festival. So, there may > be (including me), a deley in replying to the mails. :( > > Regards, > Chinthaka > > > > > Jaya > > -- > > -- Jaya > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Eran Chinthaka >
