• To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@e...>, "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:15:11 -0700
• Cc: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>

> CC: xml-dev@l...
> From: robin.berjon@e...
> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 20:27:44 +0200
> To: elharo@m...
> Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
>
> On Mar 31, 2006, at 22:45, Elliotte Harold wrote:

> > Of course. No method overloading. Think createElement,  
> > createElementNS, etc. Java and C++ wouldn;t desing an API like that.

No individual would.  But ponder http://despair.com/meetings.html and http://despair.com/compromise.html :-)

>
> 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? 

I believe that was the strongest argument against method overloading in the DOM.  As I've argued many times on this list, it's easy to flip the bozo bit on the DOM (and I personally think it's time to consider end of life planning for the poor ol' dog). But to understand where it came from one needs to remember those days of yore when CORBA was considered the wave of the future, and its constraints -- e.g. no overloading, the assumption of language neutrality, etc. -- were baked into DOM.

So,  cheer up everyone and and ponder http://despair.com/consulting.html .

• Prev by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM/ XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by thread: Easier file distribution with XML (Mirrors, P2P, & checksums)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread