Altova Mailing List Archives
>xml-dev Archive Home
>Thread Prev - Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
>Thread Next - Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
Re: [xml-dev] XML as "passive data" (Re: [xml-dev] The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@--------.--->
Date: 10/28/2002 6:39:00 PM
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> writes: > At 09:19 PM 10/23/2002 +0100, K. Ari Krupnikov wrote: > >Reading through org.apache.xml.* JavaDocs, with hundreds of protected > >fields and methods, it takes forever to understand what the data > >model, or the intended use are. > > You can turn that off with the -public option for the JavaDoc command, > which restricts the output to public classes and members. Exactly my point. You know some bits are irrelevant, you mark them as such, so when you send me the data, you can exclude them. And I'd trust you to decide what's relevant and what's not in your data. Unless you want to sprinkle ssl:relevance-level attributes in your documents, so I might filter them :=) > >Not all data in an OO object are "real" data that you might want to > >send; much of that are procedural implementation details. Is your > >recipient really interested in those integers you used as loop > >counters? > > I guess I prefer to be able to make that choice for myself. Loop > counters are uninteresting, yes, but the heavy use of private in > packages like XT has caused me more than a few problems. I don't think it's a matter of trust, rather of views on what is relevant. Perhaps if James were still maintaining XT, he would consider refactoring it. Perhaps you'd like to help Bill Lindsey with that? Ari.