[jdom-interest] getChildren() vs getElements()
tsasala at hifusion.com
tsasala at hifusion.com
Mon Sep 18 13:29:30 PDT 2000
+1 for getChildren. makes more sense to *me*.
Alex Chaffee wrote:
> Wait a second. The +1s are coming fast and furious but...
> I think getChildElements() is too verbose and also redundant. Of
> course it's a child element; what other kind of element would it
> return? A parent element? A cousin? :-)
> getElements() is not ambiguous. It doesn't imply that it recurses any
> more than getChildren() implies that it recurses. Once you accept
> that an element can contain elements, it is not confusing (it only
> sounds self-referential, but it's not).
> The issue is terminological: there are many "children" of an element,
> but only some of them are elements. Thus getElements() should return
> the children that are elements, getAttributes() should return the
> children that are attributes, and so forth.
> getChildren() should be renamed getElements()
> (*not* getChildElements(), unless there's a corresponding change to
> Likewise, getChild() should be renamed getElement().
> addChild(...) is already deprecated so it's not a problem, though I
> actually believe addChild() is better than addContent() ("content"
> implies "text content of this node" not "some sort of child of this
> getChildText(String name) is a convenience method anyway, but what
> would be the problem with renaming it getText(String name) ? The
> presence of the parameter should clear up any ambiguity.
> Then removeChild() / removeChildren() / setChildren() should be
> removeElement() / removeElements() / setElements()
> Following this logic, "getMixedContent()" should be renamed
> "getChildren()" but that would be very confusing at this stage. I'd
> still vote +1 for it but it would cause a deluge of misguided bug
> *That's* the proposal. Not piecemeal, changing one name a dozen
> times. The whole kit and kaboodle. We accept, once and for all, that
> a child is not the same as an element.
> Or not :-)
> - Alex
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 05:49:52AM -0700, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> > Wasn't there a discussion a few months ago about renaming
> > getChildren() to getElements()? This Solomon-like solution was
> > provided by somebody smart, I think James.
> > Recap:
> > element.getChildren()
> > ambiguous; implies that it gets Attributes etc. :-(
> > element.getChildElements()
> > too long to type :-(
> > element.getElements()
> > brief; no way it can be misinterpreted :-)
> > Was this just forgotten, or was there a reason to keep getChildren
> > that I missed?
> > (We could deprecate getChildren for a few months before the 1.0
> > release to allow migration.)
> > - Alex
> > P.S. This is orthogonal to the current "Element implements List"
> > discussion. BTW, I think it should not implement List, for this very
> > reason: there is an ambiguity as to what the members of that list
> > would be (elements or mixed or elements+attributes or ...)
> > --
> > Alex Chaffee mailto:alex at jguru.com
> > jGuru - Java News and FAQs http://www.jguru.com/alex/
> > Creator of Gamelan http://www.gamelan.com/
> > Founder of Purple Technology http://www.purpletech.com/
> > Curator of Stinky Art Collective http://www.stinky.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > To control your jdom-interest membership:
> > http://email@example.com
> Alex Chaffee mailto:alex at jguru.com
> jGuru - Java News and FAQs http://www.jguru.com/alex/
> Creator of Gamelan http://www.gamelan.com/
> Founder of Purple Technology http://www.purpletech.com/
> Curator of Stinky Art Collective http://www.stinky.com/
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
+ Thomas M. Sasala, Senior Developer tsasala at hifusion.com +
+ HiFusion, Inc. (W) 703.848.4441 +
+ 8180 Greensboro Dr, #500 (F) 703.848.4420 +
+ McLean, VA 22102 +
More information about the jdom-interest