[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Wed Apr 25 11:57:45 PDT 2001

At 11:00 AM -0700 4/25/01, Jason Hunter wrote:
>Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>>  I'm with Elliotte that detach should not be on the Element, but on the
>>  Element's parent.
>We already have Element.removeContent().  If you're suggesting a new
>method Document.detach(Element) or Document.removeContent(Element) then
>it's no better than status quo because that call would still allow
>non-well-formed documents.
>Or is your argument that detach() should go away, that
>Element.removeContent() should remain, and that Document should thus
>have no way to detach its root short of the programmer substituting a
>new root in place of the old with setRootElement()?  Ugh.

That is what I'm suggesting, though perhaps detach() should be the 
preferred name instead of removeContent(), but I'm not picky about 
that. I don't find it at all ugly. It seems to me to follow directly 
from the basic premises of JDOM, one of which is that all documents 
are well-formed. If Java had a way to delete an object so that noone 
could use it, then I might feel differently but since Java does let 
the Document object live, I think we need to ensure it is well-formed.

| 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