[jdom-interest] delicate balance?

Jools Enticknap jools at jools.org
Tue Aug 1 11:23:04 PDT 2000

> I just read a flurry of mail in digest form. Here are my belated
> comments.
> I favor getChild and getChildren because they jibe with my view of
> JDOM as being small, simple, and intuitive.

I think we have a -1 on getChildElement() and getChildElements() :-)

> One thing I've noticed as I follow this list: as everyone becomes
> more familiar with the intricacies of XML, they "raise" the bar
> for what passes as small, simple and intuitive.

I disagree. 

Your reasoning does not follow, given two of the contributors, Brett and
Elliotte have both written books on XML, then the API should be huge and
unwieldy. But it's not.

> I think it's hard to pile a lot of development on top of a
> delicate balance. Perhaps we need to decide: Are we trying to
> undercut DOM, getting most of the benefit with little of the
> complexity? Or are we trying to build an accessibility layer on
> top of DOM, preserving everything and making it easier to use at
> the same time?  (I hope my characterization is accurate enough to
> be helpful.)

I can't see a delicate balance, I can however see a number of individuals
who need to be convinced that any particular direction is the right one.

It might seem a little fractious on the list but I think that's because
the people contributing to this project are passionate about it's success.
I'd like to think I was one of those people.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who once wrote "I'm sorry this letter is so
long but I had very little time in which to write it." and I think that
just about sums it up, we are working hard to make sure that the JDOM API
is succinct and to the point, and that take time and a little pain.

All in all I think we're in pretty good health :-)


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list