[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]
edward.kenworthy at exchange.co.uk
Thu Apr 26 23:59:09 PDT 2001
Yes I agree with that. And if the reward was that the design is now such
that it is impossible to put the document into an invalid state (or at least
kill the root) I could live with it. (I use detach() a lot btw, so I care if
it gets messed with). However the proposal to change the behaviour of
detach() doesn't do this. Leaving things as they are and throwing an ISE
covers all cases where the document has, for ANY reason, been left in an
Currently I only ever have 2 instances of Document in my application.
Currently I don't dare try and re-use them, I throw away the old one and
instantiate a new one each time.
From: Jason Hunter [mailto:jhunter at collab.net]
Sent: 26 April 2001 18:40
To: Dennis Sosnoski
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold; jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] detach() [eg]
Backward compatibility is something to strive for where possible, but
it's not an overriding concern. The rule of thumb is that if we break
someone's code we should at least reward them with a new API that's
better than before. If we break people's code too much, they leave. If
we're afraid to ever break code, we might as well be 1.0.
To control your jdom-interest membership:
More information about the jdom-interest