• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 20:27:44 +0200
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <442D94E5.1040702@m...>
• References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@w...> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@e...> <442D7D27.8090204@m...> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@e...> <442D94E5.1040702@m...>

On Mar 31, 2006, at 22:45, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Do you have an example of something in the DOM that hurts Java  
>> that was obviously done so that Javascript would work? In the  
>> other direction, you don't need to look any further than NodeList  
>> (not even counting the liveness).
>
> Of course. No method overloading. Think createElement,  
> createElementNS, etc. Java and C++ wouldn;t desing an API like that.

That's a red herring, you can trivially switch on arguments.length. I  
think that whatever constraints that brought them to do this were  
different. I'm not the OMG IDL specialist but could the overloading  
issues come from there? It has quite a few dragons that have bitten  
me in the past, notably concerning case-sensitivity.

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/

• Prev by Date: Concept Oriented Modeling
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: Concept Oriented Modeling
• Next by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread