[jdom-interest] getChild() vs. getChildElements()

[Joe Gangemi]

I am new to JDOM and have been following this discussion. I am also 
teaching myself JAVA (C is my background), but I am a long-time SGML and, 
by extension, XML heavy.

I have no problem with getChild because I consider elements as children. An 
earlier e-mail suggested this is confusing because PIs and Comments are 
also children. Well, that's news to me. Since when is a PI or Comment a 
child of an element. If that's in the standard, it must be in the small 
print 'cause I missed it. Also, since PIs and Comments are not part of the 
document's structure and cannot be declared in a DTD, they cannot be 
considered "children."

The point is moot. getChildElement is redundant. The only "legitimate" 
children of a parent element are other elements. Where is the confusion?

         Joe G.



At 09:03 PM 7/31/00 -0700, you wrote:
> > OK, I'm going to say something that hopefully James understands (OK,
> > James? ;-) ). If someone isn't a committer on this project, we really
> > can't lend them all this extra weight.
>
>You misunderstand.  I can use whatever outside resources and opinions I
>want on deciding how to cast my vote.  Now my vote only carries with it
>the weight of one vote (although as a -1 veto that's all the weight it
>needs).
>
> > I know that I've been guilty as
> > anyone - for example, I tend to really listen up when Simon St.
> > Laurent talks, because I think he is top notch in XML land.
>
>That's nothing to be guilty of.  He is top notch, and his opinion should
>weigh into your vote.  :-)
>
> > But  votes are first you and I (on core). Then it's the testers and
> > contribers - Elliotte, Jools, Werner, some others... and thnose
> > people decide it. If we still can't get consensus or majority,
> > or whatever, /then/ we go to non-committers.
>
>Following Apache standards, one committer proposes a change, and people
>vote.  It takes three +1 votes and no -1 votes to proceed with the
>change.  (Since we have just two core committers, two +1 votes will
>suffice.)  We've already had a -1 vote here (that'd be me), so there's
>no need for looking to non-core voters.
>
>For point of reference, on the earlier null vote you and I were not
>fully decided and so looked for outside opinion.  (Which again, is a
>good thing.)
>
>Here I'm up to be swayed by outside opinion.  Please continue sending in
>opinions (for and against).  But, like I said, I put time into this
>project in the hope that it will make my XML coding life easier and save
>me time and effort.  Anything that goes against JDOM making my life
>easier makes me less inclined to put time into JDOM.
>
>I think (like Philip said) a beginner can figure out that "Element
>getChild(String name)" will return an Element, and it makes my code look
>better and gets my job done faster. And since we looked at the
>Collections APIs for whether to return null or not, let me point out
>they shortened the "addElement" name down to just "add".  :-)
>
> > Once James is a committer (something I hope he throws some patches
> > in for so we could make happen), then I'll listen to him equally
> > as well; until then, it's not fair to the community.
>
>I just have to say again:  Listen to people you know are smart!  I don't
>think anyone in this community wants you to ignore expert outside
>opinion because the person hasn't contributed patches.  The expert may
>not have a binding vote, but you don't need to shut them out.
>
>-jh-
>_______________________________________________
>To control your jdom-interest membership:
>http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jdom.org/pipermail/jdom-interest/attachments/20000801/d622ff73/attachment.htm