[jdom-interest] Re: Can't we all get along? :) -- [is] getChild() vs.getChildElements()

[Jools Enticknap]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Brett McLaughlin wrote:

> 
> 
> James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> > 
> > on 8/1/00 3:25 PM, Brett McLaughlin at brett.mclaughlin at lutris.com wrote:
> > 
> > >> The point is moot. getChildElement is redundant. The only "legitimate"
> > >> children of a parent element are other elements. Where is the
> > >> confusion?
> > >
> > > Entities. The XML specification. The XSLT specification. The XPath
> > > specification. And many others. I think what is most notable is that you
> > > may be heavy into SGML (I'm sorry ;-) ), but haven't done as much with
> > > the XML vocabularies, as that community (I have one foot in it, I
> > > suppose) is very used to seeing PIs, Comments, whitespace, text,
> > > entites, etc., as children of an Element.
> > 
> > Ok. So we've got two positions stated:
> > 
> >     pro getChild(ren):
> >         * Succinctness of method name
> >         * More distinction between singular and plural forms
> > 
> >     anti getChild(ren):
> >         * All children are not elements in the strict semantic sense
> > 
> >     pro getChildElements:
> >         * All children are not elements in the strict semantic sense
> >           according the W3C specs
> >         * More accurate name
> > 
> >     anti getChildElement(s):
> >         * getChildElement(s) are too close together in naming for
> >           clarity
> > 
> > Brett said he was happy that most people seemed to be supporting the longer
> > names. At this point, it seems that the mailing list is instead moving
> > towards deadlock as well.
> > 
> > So, as an outside observer (gee, I should have let Jas and Brett put my name
> > more agressively on the spec so I'd get a core vote, but I talked them out
> > of it... :) I agree with Jas that the method names ofgetChild are "nicer"
> > (when we were talking about this the other day, my view was that simplier
> > was better), but on reading this thread I also agree with Brett that the
> > getChildElement names are more technically "correct". And as much as I don't
> > really like having some specs having naming tweaks mandated by other specs,
> > the Children being more than Elements statement is pervasive in the XML spec
> > world and we're pretty much stuck with that. As much as I'd be fine in going
> > against that grain, I can understand why Brett and Elliotte want to go with
> > that grain. So the impasse has good reasons on both sides. Feh. Time to find
> > a compromise.
> > 
> > So, what can be done? If you look at the use case... and what the programmer
> > is saying alound as he types (with various combinations of Child and Element
> > naming), you might get the following:
> > 
> >      "Ok, so I've got this element which is my <target> element. Now, I want
> >      to get all of the elements that are below this which are instances of a
> >      <task>... I do that with a get_______________() method call."
> > 
> >   A: "Ok, so I've got this element which is my <target> element. Now, I want
> >      to get all of the elements that are below this which are instances of a
> >      <task>... I do that with a getChildren() method call."
> > 
> >   B: "Ok, so I've got this element which is my <target> element. Now, I want
> >      to get all of the elements that are below this which are instances of a
> >      <task>... I do that with a getChildElements() method call."
> > 
> >   C: "Ok, so I've got this element which is my <target> element. Now, I want
> >      to get all of the elements that are below this which are instances of a
> >      <task>... I do that with a getElements() method call."
> > 
> > A and B are deadlocked. What about C? It works well enough for me as an
> > Element has Children, some of which are Elements, some of which are
> > Entities, some of which are PIs, some of which are Comments, etc.
> 
> In the interest of getting on with it, and avoiding A ;-) I can go with
> C (getElement/getElements). Everyone else?

+1 the main issue to me was that the method should describe itself a
little better and getElement(s)() is a good middle ground.

--Jools


> 
> -Brett
> 
> > 
> > I could live with that? Anyone else?
> > 
> > .duncan
> 
> -- 
> Brett McLaughlin, Enhydra Strategist
> Lutris Technologies, Inc. 
> 1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 
> Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA 
> http://www.lutris.com
> http://www.enhydra.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhost.com
>