[XML-SIG] Ugh! Why are DOM access methods spelled with a leading
Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:21:52 -0600
> Tom Passim:
> > Jim Fulton continued the attributes thread -
> > I still don't see why anyone is still arguing about whether the DOM rec
> > makes Python use attributes. I doesn't. In fact, it says that what are
> > called "attributes" in the IDL definitions are NOT supposed to be attributes
> > in implementations, and that the get/set accessor functions don't have to
> > store/retrieve from actual objects, let alone attributes of objects.
> > So can we at least lay this part of it to rest? Now if most people think it
> > is more 'Pythonic' to use attributes, or if there are clearcut performance
> > benefits, then we have a basis for discussion. But let's quit talking about
> > whether the DOM rec makes us do attributes.
> Now I have no idea what you lot are arguing. The first argument was against
> leading underscore because it's "not Python idiom". The point was made that
> we should simply cock a snook at the Python/CORBA binding. Once that point
> was allowed, the same lot are arguing against using attributes, which are
> indisputable Python idiom on the grounds that it goes against the spirit of
> the W3C spec.
> I hope I can be blunt without antagonism, but it seems as if a particular goal
> is in mind: i.e. DOM attribute access through accessor/mutators only, and any
> available argument is being thrown at that goal.
> I'll note that I claim to have no agenda except to do what's sensible for
> Python and DOM (we've already put a great deal of work into making 4DOM
> conform to the earlier list consensus, and we could put in more work if it
> made sense.)
> The course that does make sense is to allow attribute access only because it's
> most Pythonic.
I think I was misunderstanding matters. I was genuinely confused at what was
going on when I wrote the above message (the weird lag problems on the list
don't help one bit), but I now think I understand at least Jim's train of
argument (and respect it thoroughly).
As I see it, there are three arguments:
1 the leading underscore in the Python/CORBA binding is non-pythonic and we
should avoid following it
2 it is desirable to respect the W3C's use of IDL, even if this somewhat
contradicts one above
3 it is easier for implementors to map DOM attributes to accessor/mutator
The jump from 1 to 2 confused me because it seemed contradictory, but I see
now that the core argument seems to be 3, with 1 and 2 just consequences of 3.
I still disagree with 3 because I think users' convenience is more important
than implementors', but that's a fair argument.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
firstname.lastname@example.org +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