[jdom-interest] new DOMOutputter interface

Brett McLaughlin brett.mclaughlin at lutris.com
Mon Jun 12 17:04:14 PDT 2000

Kevin Regan wrote:
> Obviously, the time for reasonable discussion has
> ended on this list.  I'll leave you guys to your work.

I don't think it's about that, Kevin. It's just a failure (it seems) to
communicate.  We have had very strong stances, from the inception of
JDOM, as to keeping any need for understanding of more complex APIs,
like DOM and SAX, out of the JDOM API. Other than needing to know that
there is such a thing as a DOM Document object, you can be completely
DOM-ignorant to read and write to DOM.

The proposal you sent in five times today, never-changing, was based on
your impression that DOMImplementation, something else in DOM, was
needed. I initially said, No, it isn't. Instead of trying to think of
alternatives, you kept submitting /ways/ to use DOMImplementation. This
frustrated me - it seemed no thought was being put into other ways,
given the constraints, to solve the problem. In fact, it seemed that you
were blatently ignoring my statements and tips on how to get around
this. Looking at DOMAdapter shows how to use nothing but a String
adapter name (which isn't even required for default) to get
implemetnation specific DOM constructs. I cannot (still) see why it is
not hard to extend the concept to things like the DocumentType class in
DOM. The fact that you never even said anything like "So I looked around
in the code, and here's my ideas, but I still don't get it" indicated
that you hadn't done that - the wealth of email simply arguing the point
or pressing your idea didn't do anything but emphasize that.

This is made worse by things like the CDATA section, where we
continually said "no, let's not do it that way" and you continually
argued the /same exact point/, without trying to come up with solutions,
different ones, that might solve your problem - you even sent in a ton
of code to make your changes, after we said that wasn't the way to do
it. While the effort is appreciated, it seems you are a bit stubborn as
to getting your specific changes in, the way you want them, without ever
challenging those assumptions upon which the solution was built.

Jason and I have had to watch and be a part of this API completely
changing from what it was in the beginning, often having a hard time,
and swallowing our pride at what we thought were "great ideas" for folks
like Elliotte, James, Simon, Alfred, Jon, Chris, and others (I'm sorry I
forget, I'm on a laptop without all the mail) to add value to JDOM. At
times, we have all had to compromise, and rethink a problem. I think you
need to take rebuttals to your proposals as a call to rethink your
problem - simply ignoring arguments and supplying unchanged responses,
and unchanged solutions, isn't really the way to get everyone convinced
that yours is a better way.

If you levae JDOM, we'll certainly not be happy - I think we can learn
from you. However, I also think that you can learn from us, and by
pushing your ideas beyond what you had originally intended them to be...
I hope you don't leave the project.


> Adieu.
> --Kevin
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> > Kevin Regan wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, I think we have discussed the pros and cons
> > > of various interfaces for this.  Can you guys
> > > make a final decision on what we should change
> > > this to (given the the current interface is
> > > not adequate for our needs)?
> >
> > The one I supplied is (public Document output(Document doc);). I don't
> > know what is confusing about that.
> >
> > So I'll code it myself to take care of it...
> >
> > -Brett
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > > kevinr at valicert.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To control your jdom-interest membership:
> > >
> > http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@you
> > rhost.com
> >

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list