[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

At 6:00 PM -0700 4/29/01, Jason Hunter wrote:
>>  That's secondary to me at this point. I am
>>  saying, though, that I think detach() on an Element would make me think it
>>  detaches an element from the object detach() is being invoked on.
>
>Luckily detach() takes no parameters so if that's your inclination (note
>it's not my inclination) then you'll have to realize it doesn't work
>that way.
>

I think Brett's correct here. The way I explain it to my students is that
the customary order in OOP is

subject.verb(object)

element.detach() violates that common understanding, especially since 
detach is not a reflexive verb.

I really see no need for detach() anymore. I think that 
parent.removeContent(child) is all that's necessary; and detach() as 
currently written is just plain confusing. If we absolutely must have 
that bit of syntax sugar, then the name should be changed to a verb 
that does commonly operate on it's subject, like element.breakAway() 
or some such; but I really don't think we need it.

And of course removing detach() totally eliminates the problems of 
clients unintentionally detaching the root element of a document.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| 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/     |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+