[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

Kenworthy, Edward edward.kenworthy at exchange.co.uk
Mon Apr 30 23:34:19 PDT 2001

Hi Guys

I think all angles on this debate have been covered, I certainly can't think
of anything new to say, so it's probably time for whoever it is that decides
such things to do so and move on.



Who does decide ? Do we vote ? Or does some great architect in the sky
decend and leave behind the decision on a tablet of stone ;-) ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hunter [mailto:jhunter at acm.org]
Sent: 01 May 2001 07:10
To: Jools
Cc: jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

Jools wrote:
> Well what a thread I've started ! I think this even beats the "to be
> null or not to be null" thread.

Once a quarter we have to rat hole I guess.  Maybe it's good; wears us
out so we can all be too lazy to argue on the next issue.

> I've read all the arguments and counter arguments over the last
> couple of weeks and I have to say I like the (b) route, which
> was always my

I'm not sure where you were going there with the last sentence, but I'm
glad we're in sync.  :-)

> Having looked at all the use cases once the root element has been
> harvested the donor Document is never referenced again, so making
> loads of effort to ensure that it's still well formed before we
> trash it seems a little crazy.
> Now, can we put this one to bed now ?

I hope so.  Now we're arguing on Node.  Guess my first statement above
wasn't true.

To control your jdom-interest membership:

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list