- From: James Melton <james.melton@cylogix.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:46:49 -0500
- To: www-dom@w3.org
Sorry if I misunderstand but... It seems that the Visitor pattern makes it "easy" to vary operations performed on a set of types at the expense of making it "difficult" to add new types to the set. If you want to extend the Node interface to many subtypes, isn't Visitor the opposite of what you need? Another possibility is that you intend to create a large (but stable) set of Node subtypes and then flexibly write operations against the extended hierarchy. This could be a good way to use the Visitor pattern, but the Visitor interface includes methods like: VisitConcreteElementA(ConcreteElementA); which requires the Visitor interface to know all ConcreteSubtypes on which it can act when it is written. If that interface is included in the DOM, doesn't it preclude client code adding new Node subtypes that can be "Visited"? Jim. ____________________________________________________________ James Melton CyLogix 609.750.5190 609.750.5100 james.melton@cylogix.com www.cylogix.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 16:44:24 UTC