[XML-SIG] minidom enhancements

[Uche Ogbuji]

On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 10:02, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> writes:
> 
> > Which, I think is bad.  We construct nodes that way in 4Suite's
> > minidom wrapper, and I can modify the cases, but I dislike the
> > change.  I think it removes a very useful and Pythonic paradigm.
> > Also, who knows how much code it would break?
> 
> In defense of the change: you are not supposed to know what the names
> of the implementation classes are; the Document is a factory. This is
> a useful property of the DOM, and applications are encouraged to use
> that.
> 
> So if the paradigm you are referring to is "instances are created by
> calling the class", so I'd dispute the usefulness of the paradigm.

Yes, the DOM abstracts this, but I thought the intent of the minidom was
to be more Pythonic.  Just as JDOM allows you to construct DOM classes
directly, I thought minidom had the same intent.

If not, then disregard: we'll just adjust our wrapper API.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html