avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Vote] Namespace support for Configuration objects
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:58:00 GMT
Leo Sutic wrote:
> > I don't see the usefulness of making the
> > Configuration object into a DOM.
> And I am not suggesting this. I am suggesting, however, that the primitive
> types one can store as values should be extended with a DOM node type. The
> DOM should not be traversable via the Configuration interface.
> What I am talking about is a getValueAsDOM () method. It is the _value_ that
> is the DOM node. The configuration node has no children.
> Regarding resource usage: If you do not store any DOM nodes in the
> configuration the overhead is zero. If you do, you pay on a per-node basis.
> That price may be high, but as we both know it is rarely paid.

I still don't see what this buys you.  What specific problem does this solve
that cannot be solved from the Configuration interface?  I still maintain that
the costs associated with this approach outweigh the benefits.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message