[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 20:27:44 +0200
- Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- In-reply-to: <442D94E5.1040702@metalab.unc.edu>
- References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@web32809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@expway.fr> <442D7D27.8090204@metalab.unc.edu> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@expway.fr> <442D94E5.1040702@metalab.unc.edu>
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/
|
