[jdom-interest] detach() [eg]

[Kenworthy, Edward]

Hi Guys

I think all angles on this debate have been covered, I certainly can't think
of anything new to say, so it's probably time for whoever it is that decides
such things to do so and move on.

Edward

PS

Who does decide ? Do we vote ? Or does some great architect in the sky
decend and leave behind the decision on a tablet of stone ;-) ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hunter [mailto:jhunter at acm.org]
Sent: 01 May 2001 07:10
To: Jools
Cc: jdom-interest at jdom.org
Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] detach() [eg]


Jools wrote:
> 
> Well what a thread I've started ! I think this even beats the "to be
> null or not to be null" thread.

Once a quarter we have to rat hole I guess.  Maybe it's good; wears us
out so we can all be too lazy to argue on the next issue.

> I've read all the arguments and counter arguments over the last
> couple of weeks and I have to say I like the (b) route, which
> was always my

I'm not sure where you were going there with the last sentence, but I'm
glad we're in sync.  :-)

> Having looked at all the use cases once the root element has been
> harvested the donor Document is never referenced again, so making
> loads of effort to ensure that it's still well formed before we
> trash it seems a little crazy.
> 
> Now, can we put this one to bed now ?

I hope so.  Now we're arguing on Node.  Guess my first statement above
wasn't true.

-jh-
_______________________________________________
To control your jdom-interest membership:
http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@yourhos
t.com