[XML-SIG] qp API
Andrew M. Kuchling
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
Fred L. Drake writes:
> I'd like to see the parent pointer kept, but I'm also fine with an
>explicit destroy() or close() method instead of those damnable
What problems do the proxies present? It would be possible to
remove them and use an explicit destroy() if they present technical
problems of their own.
> I haven't actually needed sibling pointers, so I'm not sure I care
>about them. They can be computed easily enough if someone wants the
>data on an "occaisional" basis.
If you have parent and child pointers, you don't need sibling
pointers since you just go up to the parent & retrieve its children.
I haven't really formed an opinion about the Minidom module.
On the one hand, I don't like adding an interface that resembles
another interface; too many similar choices can be confusing. (But if
PyDOM is upward-compatible with Minidom, that may not be a problem.)
On the other hand, PyDOM *is* quite heavyweight, and I can understand
the desire for something similar. Can people please give their
opinions about this?
(I do like the convenience functions like DOMFromString;
something similar should definitely be added, perhaps to dom.utils.)
A.M. Kuchling http://starship.python.net/crew/amk/
I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life
fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell,
I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.
-- Isaac Asimov 1920-1992 RIP