[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

At 10:10 AM +0100 4/26/01, Kenworthy, Edward wrote:

>Secondly, changing the behaviour of detach() in the way Elliotte has
>suggested, whilst ideal if we were starting from scratch, will break
>existing code and would cause considerable confusion. Modifying the Document
>to throw an ISE maintains all existing code.
>

This is a spurious argument. The detach() wasn't even present in beta 
6. If we take it out between beta 6 and beta 7 I see no problem. 
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the entire API should be up for 
grabs and subject to change with no concerns for backwards 
compatibility until we declare something 1.0. I certainly don't think 
a method that simply got checked into CVS one day is necessarily 
inviolate.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo at metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|                  The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999)                   |
|              http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/               |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/   |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/     |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+