Joseph, I understand your point.
But ... If I am going to rename the old DOM and break all my users, I know I will be beaten up to the ceiling and will drive them all crazy (even though it is named version 2). I mean it ... :-( On the other hand, if we are going to promote the 'IDOM' be the standard binding, then I think a rename to DOMXXX must be done. So how about .... Can we use macro? Say we still rename the old interface DOM_XXX to DOMHXXX_. And say in XercesDefs.hpp, we define a bunch of macros for compatibility, e.g. #define DOM_Node DOMHNode_ #define DOM_Element DOMHElement_ : Do you think that will work?? Tinny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Kesselman/CAM/Lotus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Call for Vote: which one to be the Xerces-C++ public supported W3C DOM interface > > Re DOMNode versus DOM_Node naming conventions: I understand the desire to > not break existing code, and I understand the desire to give the new > interfaces the most "standard" name possible, but I'm just a bit nervous > about this particular solution. I think that's going to be a bit > error-prone. We're going to spend a lot of time explaining the difference > between "DOM Node" (in the abstract), "DOMNode" (new interface), and "DOM > Underscore Node" (old implementation)... and if we forget to explicitly say > "Underscore" during a phone call, or if someone who doesn't understand the > distinction tries to mix the two or simply leaves the underscore out as a > typo, it's going to be a nuisance to discuss. > > I have to admit that I don't yet have a better alternative to offer. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
