[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <snip/>
> I'd propose that the base class itself be made generic. IOW, > > * combine JaXPah and BaseXPath > > * rename BaseXPath to XPath (yes, another object named XPath, sigh) > > * make it introspect on the parameter to figure out what type of > Navigator to instantiate. I'd like to request that this *not* be done, if I may. I'd prefer to keep an abstract base class like BaseXPath, and make the generic XPath implementation a separate subclass. I'm using Jaxen, in one instance, with my own object model. I think it would be much cleaner to be able to subclass an abstract class that has no dependencies on EXML, JDOM, DOM, or dom4j, and keep those dependencies out in a separate subclass. Unifying JaxPath and BaseXPath sounds fine to me. I wouldn't mind renaming or refactoring, but I like having an abstract implementation with no dependencies on any particular object model. I think it would be good to keep that in there. _______________________________________________ Jaxen-interest mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jaxen-interest
