[jdom-interest] Important proposal: Element/Document changes

Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Thu Jul 27 15:10:04 PDT 2000

At 12:31 PM -0700 7/27/00, Jason Hunter wrote:

>Consistency pretty much.  If you have a removeContent() for the others,
>you should have one for String.  But you bring up a good point, do we
>need removeContent() methods at all?  We need removeChild() and
>removeChildren() but do we have a compelling use case for

I reserve the right to change my mind about this, but part of the 
point of JDOM is to increase simplicity by not duplicating methods 
and data structures Java, particularly the Java Collections API, 
already provides. Following that philosophy would seem to dictate 
removing the removeContent() methods.

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo at metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
|                  The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999)                   |
|              http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/               |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/   |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/     |

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list