RE: HTML to XML, vice versa

["Stone, Brad V (TC)" <bvstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >String outputstuff = otherstuff +
> >    (new XMLTDWrapper(myClassList.getField(i).status.alignment,
> >                      myClassList.getField(i).status.width,
> >                      
> myClassList.getField(i).status.data)).toString();
> 
> Hmm.  I think I have lead you seriously astray here.  There 
> is a kind of
> "meta-rule" of O-O that
> I find helpful; if you're passing around a lot of parameters, 
> something is
> wrong with the O-O design.
> Here, that would be my design, not yours.

Well, now that I look at it, it could have been:

    new XMLTDWrapper(myClassList.getField(i).status).toString();

This way Joes rules of using an abstract data type would come into play.  I
could get the data, alignement, and other attributes in the XMLTDWrapper
class.  No reason to pass each one seperately when I could pass the entire
object itself.  This way you have an abstract data type with the general
attributes, then you can extend them for any special attributes you may
need.  If I'm off here, let me know.  
 
> In other words, you really want to see something like:
> 
>   outstring = outstring +   (new 
> address1ToHTML(address1_ref)).toString();

To me, this really seems like a fancy way of hardcoding.  :)   If we make a
decorator object for every field in our system that's a lot of decorators.
Now, multiply that number by every *ML tag we want to use.  Yikes.

Again, let me know if I'm off.  

Sorry if I'm being annoying.  I hope others are reading this too and
hopefully gaining something.

Brad
+---
| This is the JAVA/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to JAVA400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to JAVA400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to JAVA400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: joe@zappie.net
+---