----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnaud Le Hors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Build questions
> Eric Hodges wrote:
> >
> > <rant>
> > The problem could have been avoided by something like this:
> >
> > package org.w3c.dom2;
> >
> > public interface Node2 extends org.w3c.dom.Node {
> > public void normalize();
> > }
>
> If you look at early drafts of the DOM Level 2 spec you'll see that this
> is what I originally proposed.
Cool.
> But, sometime later, it was decided to
> simply extend DOM Level 1 interfaces. As I recall the main reason was
> that new interfaces would force people to cast objects all over the
> place which would make applications code heavier and have a performance
> cost. This was deemed more important in the long term, than allowing
> different DOM implementations to co-exist.
I see. Then I think they should have made an entirely new package for DOM 2
that shares no dependencies with DOM 1.
> You're entitled to disagree.
Yay.
>
> > Even Microsoft has the decency to freeze their interfaces once they are
> > released.
>
> No comment...
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but working with their COM interfaces is simplified
by the use of interface versions.
