[jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics -let's move on!

Tatu Saloranta cowtowncoder at yahoo.com
Mon Sep 17 12:08:27 PDT 2007

Regarding being user/use-case - driven: I agree, I wouldn't want generics
support be added just for the sake it getting added. But optimally
people who code new features would do that to scratch their own itch,
or at least to help someone directly affected by lack of such support.

As to NIO: while it might be a potentially good idea in general (tree in virtual memory), NIO can only help with low-level stuff which occurs well  before JDOM gets involved. But even if they do, you still have the problem of either where to actually store node objects; or alternatively, how to index source xml textual serialization so you can construct Nodes efficiently on-the-fly.
And at that point, I think you might as well consider Native Xml Databases, because they get you the ability to deal with large documents. Or, for simpler tasks, directly use streaming parsers.
So I don't think that using NIO would have short- or long-term benefits wrt. JDOM, except via transitive dependencies (one of parsing packages needing it or such).

-+ Tatu +-

----- Original Message ----
From: "New, Cecil (GE Infra, US)" <cecil.new at ge.com>
To: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder at yahoo.com>; jdom interest <jdom-interest at jdom.org>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 5:12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics -let's move on!

Another angle would be find some compelling _user_ driven reason to
move.  And on this point, I recall, but have never looked into it, that
the NIO package enable file-mapped-memory.  At the sacrifice of some
performance, wouldn't this allow very large documents to be read into a
DOM.  Anyone know off-hand whether this is true? 

-----Original Message-----
From: jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org
[mailto:jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org] On Behalf Of Tatu Saloranta
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:50 PM
To: jdom interest
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics
-let's move on!

I think that in the end "he who codes, wins". So as long as someone is
willing to do the gruntwork for changing APIs appropriately, gets the
buy-in from others, he/she/they should be able to pursue "back to the
future" plan and get JDOM to move to his/her/their preferred direction.
The main practical question would be how to branch things in the source
control system, and related question of version numbering scheme to use.
Version probably should move to 2.x, given that it is a big
compatibility change.

Above are obviously just my opinions, Jason and others with actual power
will ultimately decide.

-+ Tatu +-

----- Original Message ----
From: Syloke Soong <ssoong at protedyne.com>
To: Johannes Schneider <johannes at familieschneider.info>;
jdom-interest at jdom.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:36:57 AM
Subject: [jdom-interest] JDK 4 should not hold us back from generics -
let's move on!

Despite extended discussions on the subject in the past...

If there is a vote on moving jdom to jdk 5, for the sake of generics, I
would vote yes.

I cannot quite recall what I did some months ago, where if I felt
compelled to have generics sets in my code, I simply wrapped any jdom
class with generics code (as I had extraneously wrap legacy code with
c++ code just to enjoy oo-features).

It would be nice if I could skip the extraneous wrapping. It keeps me
wondering how much execution inefficiency that might introduce into
compiled code.

I had been thinking, perhaps, we could have a splinter effort to work on
jdom for generics. Now, I prefer the converse - it's time to freeze jdom
development on jdk 4 and move on to jdk 5. Let a splinter effort take on
continuing jdom development on jdk 4. If jdk 4 programmers are a
minority, it's not good reason to hold the rest of us back.

If after jdom had moved on to jdk 5, and if someone really felt the need
for the latest jdom to run on jdk 4, Retrotranslator could be what they
should turn to. Question for Johannes - but then, we would lose ability
to debug in a jdk 4 env, wouldn't we? If so, my selfish attitude would
say - "Let it be".

-----Original Message-----
From: jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org
[mailto:jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org] On Behalf Of Johannes Schneider
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:45 PM
To: jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: [jdom-interest] Retrotranslator patch


I have created a small patch that adds support for Retrotranslator.

To use the patch, it is also necessary to add three jars from
Retrotranslator to a directory called "retrotranslator".
They can be downloaded here:

I hope the Generics discussion regains momentum....

-----End of Original Message-----


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender immediately. Please note that any views or opinions presented in
this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the company. Even though this company takes every
precaution to ensure this email is virus-free, the recipient should
check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The
company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
Protedyne Corporation, 1000 Day Hill Rd, Windsor, CT 06095, USA,


To control your jdom-interest membership:

Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

To control your jdom-interest membership:

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list