[jdom-interest] API instability?
EGalluzzo at synchrony.net
Thu Aug 31 06:00:50 PDT 2000
> "Galluzzo, Eric" wrote:
> > We then downloaded a newer version of 1.0b4, which was apparently
> > still called 1.0b4,
> You downloaded a daily snapshot of work since 1.0b4 but not
> yet 1.0b5.
> They aren't officially versioned.
Ah, I see! I didn't realize that. :)
> > and quite a few of the methods we were using (e.g.
> > Element.getLongContent()) had not only been deprecated but
> > actually removed.
> Those probably should have been deprecated, but considering they were
> removed partially for lack of use (no one defended them during the
> debates on whether they should be removed) it wasn't a real concern to
> deprecate them. Doing deprecation isn't mandatory; the API is
> pre-release afterall. :-)
Indeed, and that's fine; I'm somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately to JDOM (in
particular, I just started subscribing to the mailing list on Monday and
started actually using JDOM about a week before that), so I missed those
discussions. :) It's probably no big deal, I can just do a Long.parseLong
(elem.getContent()), but it's a bit more work. However, I'm surprised that
getContent() was deprecated, since it seems like one of the more useful
methods supplied with JDOM -- one of the differentiators between DOM and
> You can make an argument on the list for them to be put back
> in if you'd
> like. Just please first check the archives for justifcation
> on why they
> were removed. I say this because I remember someone else missing the
> methods after they were removed. (All I can say on missing them after
> the fact is that if you want to influence the API you have to
> read your
> email. It's easier to defend existing methods than convince people to
> add methods back.)
Indeed; again, I only started subscribing to the mailing list on Monday, so
I'm a bit of a newcomer.
> > * How unstable is the API? We do not want to have to rewrite
> > our code every time a new version is released, as we have had to
> > this time. If it is too unstable, we will not be able to use it.
> It's pre-release. We don't anticipate future changes like
> we're having
> between beta4 and beta5, but there will be changes. Some people can
> live with that, some can't. One reason to stay involved before 1.0
> though is that it's the only way to influence the API. If you care
> about what 1.0 looks like, you have to be involved before the API is
We can live with that; our only concern was that there would be massive
changes like this in every release, since the only experience we have with
JDOM is 1.0b4-b5. If there won't be, then that's fine.
> > * When is 1.0 coming out? Our manager is afraid of using a pre-1.0
> > version of JDOM for anything significant, even though it seems
> > very stable.
> 1.0 will come out when we collectively are happy with the API and feel
> the implementation is stable.
> > * Is there any sort of list of companies successfully using JDOM in
> > production that we can peruse?
> Not for me to answer. I know a lot of important companies are looking
> into it, and you could use the current code in production probably for
> certain tasks. We're addressing issues like should we check
> for adding
> and element to itself or not, should we sanity check PCDATA content or
> not, and should we have a way for an element to get its document or
> not. None of that keeps you from using the current API successfully.
Indeed. We have been using the API quite successfully and we really rather
like it. We've made a couple of tweaks to our own copy which we will submit
back as proposed patches when we're comfortable that our changes mesh well
with the rest of JDOM. The changes are:
- add org.jdom.Element DOMBuilder.build (org.w3c.dom.Element)
(for use with Apache SOAP)
- change Element.getChild(String) so that it uses the
namespace of the parent instead of the default namespace;
if you want the default namespace, you can always pass null
- make a couple of JDK1.1 fixes
- and probably a couple other things which I forgot
> > * Is there any chance of an "official" JDK1.1 version of JDOM, or
> > should we keep patching new versions privately when they come out?
> You should really keep up on the mailing list. There's been a ton of
> traffic about this. JDK 1.1 is already supported in the latest code.
> build11 is the script.
That's great! I'll have to check that out. Thanks very much for your
More information about the jdom-interest