[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: InnerXml is like printf (WAS: Underwhelmed)
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] > > Interestingly, this is is one the philosophic differences between XOM > and JDOM. JDOM allows method chaining. XOM does not. To some extent, > this design choice has been heavily influenced by my work with > JavaBeans, where a method that doesn't return void isn't recognized > as a setter method. I'm not sure if that has any true relevance here, > but it's definitely influenced me as to what feels right and what > doesn't. If you look at the 1.2 collections API, you find that methods do on occasion return when there are side effects on the underlying data structure. For example, a remove(key) call will return the removed value. So I think there's an argument to be had that it's reasonable for an append() call, which changes the underlying data structure to return a value. See Map.put() for an example, but be aware that returning true or false is also an option; see Collection.add() for an example of that. Following the bean practice doesn't work for me because it is optimised to get/set on fields (the structure is flat), not manipulate a headed list (a tree structure). > And my third problem is that I just think it looks too damn ugly! I > can't read it. I can't follow it, even with good indenting. As good a reason as any. Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|