org.apache.xml.dtm
public interface DTMFilter
Field Summary | |
---|---|
static int | SHOW_ALL
Show all Nodes . |
static int | SHOW_ATTRIBUTE
Show Attr nodes. |
static int | SHOW_BYFUNCTION
Special bit for filters implementing match patterns starting with
a function. |
static int | SHOW_CDATA_SECTION
Show CDATASection nodes. |
static int | SHOW_COMMENT
Show Comment nodes. |
static int | SHOW_DOCUMENT
Show Document nodes. |
static int | SHOW_DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT
Show DocumentFragment nodes. |
static int | SHOW_DOCUMENT_TYPE
Show DocumentType nodes. |
static int | SHOW_ELEMENT
Show Element nodes. |
static int | SHOW_ENTITY
Show Entity nodes. |
static int | SHOW_ENTITY_REFERENCE
Show EntityReference nodes. |
static int | SHOW_NAMESPACE
This bit instructs the iterator to show namespace nodes, which
are modeled by DTM but not by the DOM. |
static int | SHOW_NOTATION
Show Notation nodes. |
static int | SHOW_PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION
Show ProcessingInstruction nodes. |
static int | SHOW_TEXT
Show Text nodes. |
Method Summary | |
---|---|
short | acceptNode(int nodeHandle, int whatToShow)
Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
DTMIterator . |
short | acceptNode(int nodeHandle, int whatToShow, int expandedName)
Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
DTMIterator . |
Nodes
.Attr
nodes. This is meaningful only when creating an
iterator or tree-walker with an attribute node as its
root
; in this case, it means that the attribute node
will appear in the first position of the iteration or traversal.
Since attributes are never children of other nodes, they do not
appear when traversing over the main document tree.%REVIEW% Might be safer to start from higher bits and work down, to leave room for the DOM to expand its set of constants... Or, possibly, to create a DTM-specific field for these additional bits.
CDATASection
nodes.Comment
nodes.Document
nodes. (Of course, as with Attributes
and such, this is meaningful only when the iteration root is the
Document itself, since Document has no parent.)DocumentFragment
nodes. (Of course, as with
Attributes and such, this is meaningful only when the iteration
root is the Document itself, since DocumentFragment has no parent.)DocumentType
nodes.Element
nodes.Entity
nodes. This is meaningful only when creating
an iterator or tree-walker with an Entity
node as its
root
; in this case, it means that the Entity
node will appear in the first position of the traversal. Since
entities are not part of the document tree, they do not appear when
traversing over the main document tree.EntityReference
nodes. Note that if Entity References
have been fully expanded while the tree was being constructed, these
nodes will not appear and this mask has no effect.%REVIEW% Might be safer to start from higher bits and work down, to leave room for the DOM to expand its set of constants... Or, possibly, to create a DTM-specific field for these additional bits.
Notation
nodes. This is meaningful only when creating
an iterator or tree-walker with a Notation
node as its
root
; in this case, it means that the
Notation
node will appear in the first position of the
traversal. Since notations are not part of the document tree, they do
not appear when traversing over the main document tree.ProcessingInstruction
nodes.Text
nodes.DTMIterator
. Normally, this function
will be called by the implementation of DTMIterator
;
it is not normally called directly from
user code.
Parameters: nodeHandle int Handle of the node. whatToShow one of SHOW_XXX values.
Returns: one of FILTER_ACCEPT, FILTER_REJECT, or FILTER_SKIP.
DTMIterator
. Normally, this function
will be called by the implementation of DTMIterator
;
it is not normally called directly from
user code.
TODO: Should this be setNameMatch(expandedName) followed by accept()? Or will we really be testing a different name at every invocation?
%REVIEW% Under what circumstances will this be used? The cases I've considered are just as easy and just about as efficient if the name test is performed in the DTMIterator... -- Joe
%REVIEW% Should that 0xFFFF have a mnemonic assigned to it? Also: This representation is assuming the expanded name is indeed split into high/low 16-bit halfwords. If we ever change the balance between namespace and localname bits (eg because we decide there are many more localnames than namespaces, which is fairly likely), this is going to break. It might be safer to encapsulate the details with a makeExpandedName method and make that responsible for setting up the wildcard version as well.
Parameters: nodeHandle int Handle of the node. whatToShow one of SHOW_XXX values. expandedName a value defining the exanded name as defined in the DTM interface. Wild cards will be defined by 0xFFFF in the namespace and/or localname portion of the expandedName.
Returns: one of FILTER_ACCEPT, FILTER_REJECT, or FILTER_SKIP.