[jdom-interest] Announce: JDOMPlus a flexible XML framework f or Java

[James Strachan]

Whoops, I pressed send too early on that previous mail - sorry about that.
That'll teach me to type before I've had my morning coffee ;-)

I was just about to say...

From: "Jason Hunter" <jhunter at collab.net>
> Brett and I very much hope that people with design ideas continue to use
> this list as the place for discussion.  I'm always happy to debate the
> merits of different designs.

Me too its fun :-)

Though from Bretts responses such as...

http://lists.denveronline.net/lists/jdom-interest/2000-November/003901.html
http://lists.denveronline.net/lists/jdom-interest/2000-December/003954.html

I think its pretty clear that interfaces, factories, multiple tree
implementations ('dual' trees), read only & reusable branches and the like
are not going to make it into JDOM. Period. JDOM has one Element
implemention and one Attribute implementation end of story. Unfortunately, I
don't see much point discussing such things on JDOM anymoreas it is clear
JDOM will never move in the 'interface' direction.

It is for this very reason that I started the 'project formerly known as
JDOM+' ;-) project. For those people amongst us who want to freely mix and
match different data structure implementations for different use cases /
schemas within an API framework rather than relying on a 'one size fits all'
approach to data structures.

> I enjoy that discussion actually; it's one
> of the nicest perks of this unpaid position.  :-)  It's unfortunate we
> can't accept every idea,

Agreed - its unfortunate but trade-offs have to be made.

> but we believe it's best when making API
> changes to "Measure twice, cut once" as they say, and the factory model
> promoted by the forked design definitely raised some hairy unresolved
> issues.

What hairy unresolved issues are they? Though I like the term - hairy
unresolved issue - HUI - I hope it catches on ;-)

If most of us can use interfaces for Map, List and Set quite happily I'm at
a loss to understand what is so fundamentally wrong with using interfaces to
represent a Java based XML tree data structure. The only problem with this
approach as far as I can see (other than an increase in complexity which can
be hidden from the user in many ways) is that politically it would make JDOM
apprear more like DOM.

<James/>


James Strachan
=============
email: james at metastuff.com
web: http://www.metastuff.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Hunter" <jhunter at collab.net>

> The name "JDOM", however, is protected.  As everyone can see from
> reading the LICENSE.txt file and the license text attached to the head
> of every source file, the JDOM code is licensed under an Apache-style
> license and license terms 3 and 4 protect the original project name and
> allow its use only with written permission from JDOM Project
> management.  James has not sought after or received permission to use
> the name JDOM, and thus we have asked James to select another name for
> his project that complies with the license and does not include "JDOM",
> and also to choose web site names that do not include JDOM either.

I'm a techie not a lawyer and hadn't looked too deeply at the licence.
I'll change the name of the project shortly.
Appologies to Brett & yourself and everyone else in the JDOM community.

> Brett and I very much hope that people with design ideas continue to use
> this list as the place for discussion.  I'm always happy to debate the
> merits of different designs.

Me too its fun :-)

Though from Bretts responses...


> I enjoy that discussion actually; it's one
> of the nicest perks of this unpaid position.  :-)  It's unfortunate we
> can't accept every idea, but we believe it's best when making API
> changes to "Measure twice, cut once" as they say, and the factory model
> promoted by the forked design definitely raised some hairy unresolved
> issues.
>
> -jh-
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
>
http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhos
t.com
>


<James/>


James Strachan
=============
email: james at metastuff.com
web: http://www.metastuff.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Strachan" <james at metastuff.com>
To: "Jason Hunter" <jhunter at collab.net>; <jdom-interest at jdom.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] Announce: JDOMPlus a flexible XML framework for
Java


>
>
> <James/>
>
>
> James Strachan
> =============
> email: james at metastuff.com
> web: http://www.metastuff.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Hunter" <jhunter at collab.net>
>
> > The name "JDOM", however, is protected.  As everyone can see from
> > reading the LICENSE.txt file and the license text attached to the head
> > of every source file, the JDOM code is licensed under an Apache-style
> > license and license terms 3 and 4 protect the original project name and
> > allow its use only with written permission from JDOM Project
> > management.  James has not sought after or received permission to use
> > the name JDOM, and thus we have asked James to select another name for
> > his project that complies with the license and does not include "JDOM",
> > and also to choose web site names that do not include JDOM either.
>
> I'm a techie not a lawyer and hadn't looked too deeply at the licence.
> I'll change the name of the project shortly.
> Appologies to Brett & yourself and everyone else in the JDOM community.
>
> > Brett and I very much hope that people with design ideas continue to use
> > this list as the place for discussion.  I'm always happy to debate the
> > merits of different designs.
>
> Me too its fun :-)
>
> Though from Bretts responses...
>
>
> > I enjoy that discussion actually; it's one
> > of the nicest perks of this unpaid position.  :-)  It's unfortunate we
> > can't accept every idea, but we believe it's best when making API
> > changes to "Measure twice, cut once" as they say, and the factory model
> > promoted by the forked design definitely raised some hairy unresolved
> > issues.
> >
> > -jh-
> > _______________________________________________
> > To control your jdom-interest membership:
> >
>
http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhos
> t.com
> >
>


If you are not the addressee of this confidential e-mail and any
attachments, please delete it and inform the sender; unauthorised
redistribution or publication is prohibited. Views expressed are those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of Citria Limited.