I also heard other similar complaints
about the name "IDOM".
I've no idea why it was named "IDOM", my binding
proposal just inherits whatever already implemented there
.....
If we are going to give it a new name, then it
means all existing IDOM files (e.g. IDOM_Node.hpp) and IDOM classes (e.g.
class IDOM_Node) will be renamed accordingly. Then all existing IDOM
users need to do such global rename migration after the binding proposal is
approved by the mailing list.
Since the IDOM was still in "experimental" state in
Xerces-C++ 1.6.0 and thus considerable API changes should be expected, may
be such "global rename migration" is acceptable to IDOM
users??
If most existing IDOM users vote for the
rename, then we can pick a more reasonable name. How about prefix it with "DOM" (not "DOM_" as in the old
DOM)? For example
DOMDocument
DOMElement
DOMNode
DOMAttribute
DOMRange
...
etc.
??
Tinny
|
Title: Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level 2 - in term of IDOM
- Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level 2 - in term ... Tinny Ng
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level 2 -... Murray Cumming
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level 2 -... James Berry
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level... Tinny Ng
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM L... James Berry
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for D... John Utz
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding ... James Berry
- RE: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for D... Lenny Hoffman
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding ... James Berry
- RE: Proposal: C++ Language Bind... Lenny Hoffman
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language ... Jason E. Stewart
- RE: Proposal: C++ Language ... Lenny Hoffman
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM L... Murray Cumming
- Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for D... Jason E. Stewart