Knut, Thank you for the feedback. There is no need to make an "official" feature request. I'll take care of it. Regards, - Dmitri
Knut Wannheden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitri, Knut Wannheden gmail.com> writes: > > Dmitri Plotnikov apache.org> writes: > > > @name is a reserved attribute name for Java Objects. It in fact checks the > > name of the property/key rather than the value of the property called > > "name". I think it is equivalent to "[name() = 'Foo']. This feature should > > be deprecated, and I will try to do so in a future release. > > > > Yes, I think name() is indeed equivalent and IMO preferable as it's more XPath > style and doesn't keep users from using @name to access an object's property > "name" (i.e. getName()). > > In the JXPath based EMF search tool I've been working on > (http://emfsearch.sourceforge.net/) I have now customized the JXPath axes as > I've previously outlined (child:: and thus also descendant:: only for EMF > containment references). With this customization it is now very difficult to > write queries which access the getName() method of an object. Instead of > "[EMAIL PROTECTED] = 'Foo']" I have to use something like "[string(@name) = > 'Foo']". > If found a reasonable workaround for this which might be useful to others. The equality check can simply be turned around. I.e. "['Foo' = @name]" works fine. Now I've just got two more questions on this :-) Have you been able to check if removing DescendantContext#isChildOrderingRequired() breaks anything? Do you want me to open a feature request for either of these two changes? Regards, --knut --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
