[jdom-interest] Code submision: JDOM2 the dual tree implement ation...

Brett McLaughlin brett at newInstance.com
Wed Nov 29 06:26:59 PST 1995

I have to, at this point, step in and say that I'm firmly (now) against
this. While I've been monitoring the discussions for several days, and
appreciate all of James' hard work, the complexity is spiralling. I'm
also now beginning to see statements like "to support this [new] idea,
we must change and throw out old ideas" For example, to support this,
pulling Element into an interface and abstract class seems neccessary.
Of course, I'm strongly against this for all the reasons that I was
against it over the last year (see the mail archives and anywhere the
word DOM occurs ;-) ).

I think this is clearly outside of the 80/20 rule, maybe even the 95/5
rule. Nobody is seeming to speak up for it, either, which makes me think
that it is not serving a common cause. Again, I hate to sort of nix such
a large amount of work by James, but people just don't get this, and
don't really want to pay the heavy prices associated with it.

Right now, elements are elements, not immutable, or mutable, we don't
have nodes that can't be modified, we don't have DOM-isms, which are all
the things being introduced by this approach. Sorry... I just can't see
this being a good thing for JDOM.


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list