[jdom-interest] Re: Element Reference from Attribute

James Strachan james at metastuff.com
Tue Nov 28 02:27:12 PST 2000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Bowbeer" <jozart at csi.com>

> I like the idea of making the fully-functional classes the default.

Agreed. I've made it so in my JDOM patch.

> I'm not excited about seeing a lot of changes to JDOM at this late-beta
> stage, ...

I agree with Patrick's point - now's the time to get these things right,
before the 1.0 release. We're not talking about a massive change here

When I turned Element / Attribute / et al into singly linked and all the
leaf nodes immutable, I ran all the sample programs and they all worked
without any changes at all. Same is true for the org.jdom.output package. It
seems to be quite a small set of users who explicitly use upward tree
navigation or do explicit leaf node mutation.

> but I would vote for enhancing the default classes with the
> additional navigational capabilities needed for XPath.

I've integrated XPath into my dual JDOM tree patch. I'll post a URL to it

> By the way, what advantages would a low-memory version of JDOM have over

Well for a start the most of the API of singly linked and doubly linked JDOM
is identical, most of the code is reused and auxillary code is shared across
both. Implementing a dual tree has only a small impact on the number of
classes and API complexity. KDOM appears to be a whole different kind of
thing to me.


James Strachan
email: james at metastuff.com
web: http://www.metastuff.com

If you are not the addressee of this confidential e-mail and any
attachments, please delete it and inform the sender; unauthorised
redistribution or publication is prohibited. Views expressed are those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Citria Limited.

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list