[jdom-interest] Accessing Child Elements

David W. Smiley dsmiley at mitre.org
Wed Sep 6 16:04:25 PDT 2000

Jason Hunter wrote:
> > --you could have that argument for any system in which namespaces are
> > used; it means nothing.  Namespaces are about convenience.
> Namespaces are more than convenience, but I'll let Elliotte talk to that
> if he wants.  :-)

	Of course, I did not mean to imply that.  The main point was that your
saying that a FQ'd name is intrinsic to the object does not mean that
one must be explicit when creating/identifying objects in all cases. 
Your argument does not take into consideration the convenience of

	Hey Peter, I read your recommendation and it looks good to me.  I agree
with your main points, as they are the main points of my
recommendation.  The difference is that my recommendation suggested that
newly created Elements not have a namespace so that when they are added
to some other element, that it be inherited.  You don't have this, but
you suggested a createChild method which makes my behavior easier to
get.  All I said about inheritance of the namespace field is an
implementation detail so that when adding an element you don't have to
visit all elements in the tree to change the field.

-- David Smiley

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list