[XML-SIG] The '_' thingy
Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:11:06 -0600
> Mike Olson wrote:
> > So, I think I see this as a general concensius:
> Are you kidding?
> > 1. DOM will never (in forseeable future) be used over an ORB, so the
> > IDL should be used as a guide.
> Uh, this doesn't make sense.
> > We should focus more on useability then
> > CORBA compliance.
> > 2. Most people will access the DOM via attributes.
> Who says? What do you have to support this? Most people
> will access the DOM through whatever interface we define.
Mike's support is that back when this SIG agreed upon attribute access as well
as _get/_set ops, most people said they'd prefer to just use plain attribute
access anyway, and the _get/_set was only needed for completeness.
Do you have any support to contradict his assertion?
> I'm not. I would prefer to see accessor functions for
> DOM attributes that are a part of the API and whos names
> don't begin with '_'s.
> > then we should start down this path.
> Whatever path we start down, it should begin with a draft
> that documements the DOM mapping for Python.
I'm working on it.
> > A
> > langauge mapping is something we can put into the next release of 4DOM
> > (something we've been meaning to do any ways). The rest of the cahnges
> > are actually in place (unless we define a different callback naming
> > convention). We will be slowly depricating _get_* soon as well.
> > However we will still need __setattr__ callbacks in some cases....
> Not if you go to accessor functions instead of attribute-based access.
Not a problem for our uses.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +01 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python