[jdom-interest] (no subject)

[Jason Hunter]

>>>Somehow that morphed into these
>>>Parent/Child interfaces, which IMO don't add any value to API as they
>>>stand right now. Having a single Node interface would for example
>>>allow some apis that work on any JDOM object be more type safe by not
>>>having to pass Object.
>>
>>They won't be any more type safe!  You could pass "MyBogusThing
>>implements Node" and screw up the tree.
> 
> Oh please.  Thats a BS argument and you know it. 

My desire to debate technical issue with you goes down dramatically when 
you call things "BS" and claim that I "know I'm giving a BS argument". 
The people who work on this project respect each other and each other's 
opinions.  We don't always agree, but we believe we each have the 
project's best interests at heart.

 > If someone implements an
> interface then they oblige to the contract of that interface. 

If we had a Node interface there would be very little in that 
"contract".  Not every XML "node" can go everywhere.  The rules are very 
specific.  So with or without a generic interface we'd have to check. 
The only way we don't have to check is if we use explicit types like 
Element, DocType, and such.  But even then since we return a live List 
we have to check what you pass in since the List interface accepts any 
Object.  So we're checking regardless.  It's not a BS argument.  Having 
a Node interface doesn't give you any special type safety.

> That's a huge loss. Do you realize how much change that is to the users? I
> know you think JDOM is beta, and huge changes are ok until JDOM is 1.0 (3
> years after the original start). But you know what, at some point its not.
> You're just alienating users who really liked JDOM in the beginning,
> thought it was a great replacement for DOM, and chose to use it for their
> apps. Now you telling them to change in very significant way.

Yep.  Your vote is counted.  In fact, you're repeating an argument I've 
used before.

-jh-