- From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@crc.ricoh.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 1998 16:01:17 -0700
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
keshlam@us.ibm.com writes: > There are other ways of creating nodes, however: most languages have a > "new" operator. > > It's legitimate to say "That will allocate the space but will not produce a > properly initialized/valid/usable object." In Java and Smalltalk (and, indeed, every OO language I know of except badly-written C++) "new" produces a properly initialized, valid, useable object. > Remember, the DOM _is_ an OO design; objects may be produced only by valid > constructors and factories -- and a given object's public API may have > _only_ factories and not constructors. Actually, the DOM is a _subset_ of an OO design -- it's a set of standardized interfaces to a set of classes that, under the hood, can have other interfaces (even public ones) as well. Our application simply cannot be written using only the DOM interfaces as specified; with several tens of additional classes it could be written but would have at most half the performance that it would with extended interfaces and more appropriate behavior. It is NOT likely to be rewritten in JavaScript. > But if that's the desired behavior, the spec should make it unmistakable. I don't believe that the spec _should_ include this restriction. In any case, the DOM specifies only interfaces; in most languages one can go ``behind the DOM's back'' and go direct to the implementation classes. Besides, as far as I know one can't specify a constructor in an IDL interface. -- Stephen R. Savitzky Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc., <steve@rsv.ricoh.com> California Research Center voice: 650.496.5710 fax: 650.854.8740 URL: http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/ home: <steve@starport.com> URL: http://www.starport.com/people/steve/
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 18:56:39 UTC