axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ajith Ranabahu <ajith.ranab...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Axis2] OMNodeImpl notes
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:23:45 GMT
Hi,
I guess this is another facet of the SOAP vs pure XML problem :). The reason 
why we are not so keen on having an OMDocument is that it is just redundant 
when it comes to SOAP message processing (except for a PI which we are happy 
to skip:)).
IMHO you will probably need to reinstate the OMDocument if full infoset 
support is needed!

On 4/15/05, Venkat Reddy <vreddyp@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Before i talk about the problem, Eran, i see that we are still
> creating the OMDocument and setting the first ELEMENT_NODE as its
> rootElement. - isn't it?
> 
> The problem as i understood:
> 
> There are stuff other than root element (envelop) that need go as
> children into the OMDocument object. Currently this is not possible
> because OMDocument isn't designed to contain anything other than
> rootElement.
> 
> Possible solutions:
> 
> 1. Make OMDocument to extend OMNode, and move the addChild* methods
> from OMElement to OMNode. I think this is preferable becaus the
> addChild, getChild sort of methods seem more natural to OMNode than
> OMElement. OMElement can have addChildElement etc, if needed.
> 
> 2. Make OMDocument to extend OMElement, but i think this is an
> overkill, because the Document object isn't really an XML element.
> 
> I didn't understand why we need Object or OMContainer as parent. May
> be i'm missing something.
> 
> - venkat
> 
> 
> On 4/12/05, Eran Chinthaka <chinthakae@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 2005 12:58 PM, jayachandra <jayachandra@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi devs!
> > >
> > > Currently OMNodeImpl has the data memeber 'parent' of type OMElement.
> > > This appears problematic. Because for document level comments (i mean,
> > > comments that are present outside the root element in the XML
> > > document) parent becomes OMDocument rather than OMElement. So better
> > > have the 'parent' data member as Object. And accordingly the return
> > > type of getParent will be Object. I hope this change will not break
> > > any existing code, will it???
> >
> > This will not break any of the code. But this will add some bad
> > things, IMHO, to code. For example, anything can be a parent of any
> > node, even a Text node.
> > That was the main reason why, we purposely made parent to an OMElement.
> >
> > I understand your concern, but ............
> >
> > And there is another question coming from me, is it necessary to
> > provice the ability to add comments to the Document which is even out
> > of the document element ??
> >
> > Making this available is of not that useful, but will add some weird
> > look to the code.
> >
> > We earlier had the concept of OMDocument, but later removed it.
> >
> > For your all information : These days all the Sri Lankan people have
> > gone home to celebrate our Sinhalese new year festival. So, there may
> > be (including me), a deley in replying to the mails. :(
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chinthaka
> >
> > >
> > > Jaya
> > > --
> > > -- Jaya
> > >
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Eran Chinthaka
> >
> 



-- 
Ajith Ranabahu

Mime
View raw message