[jdom-interest] delicate balance?
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
> 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.
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