Modifier and Type | Field and Description |
---|---|
public static final int | SHOW_ALL
Show all |
public static final int | SHOW_ATTRIBUTE
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_BYFUNCTION
Special bit for filters implementing match patterns starting with a function. |
public static final int | SHOW_CDATA_SECTION
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_COMMENT
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_DOCUMENT
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_DOCUMENT_TYPE
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_ELEMENT
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_ENTITY
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_ENTITY_REFERENCE
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_NAMESPACE
This bit instructs the iterator to show namespace nodes, which are modeled by DTM but not by the DOM. |
public static final int | SHOW_NOTATION
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION
Show |
public static final int | SHOW_TEXT
Show |
Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
---|---|
public short | Returns: one of FILTER_ACCEPT, FILTER_REJECT, or FILTER_SKIP.int Handle of the node. nodeHandle, int one of SHOW_XXX values. whatToShow)Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
|
public short | Returns: one of FILTER_ACCEPT, FILTER_REJECT, or FILTER_SKIP.int Handle of the node. nodeHandle, int one of SHOW_XXX values. whatToShow, int 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. expandedName)Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
|
SHOW_ALL | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_ALL Show all |
SHOW_ATTRIBUTE | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_ATTRIBUTE Show |
SHOW_BYFUNCTION | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_BYFUNCTION Special bit for filters implementing match patterns starting with
a function. Make sure this does not conflict with
%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. |
SHOW_CDATA_SECTION | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_CDATA_SECTION Show |
SHOW_COMMENT | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_COMMENT Show |
SHOW_DOCUMENT | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_DOCUMENT Show |
SHOW_DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_DOCUMENT_FRAGMENT Show |
SHOW_DOCUMENT_TYPE | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_DOCUMENT_TYPE Show |
SHOW_ELEMENT | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_ELEMENT Show |
SHOW_ENTITY | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_ENTITY Show |
SHOW_ENTITY_REFERENCE | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_ENTITY_REFERENCE Show |
SHOW_NAMESPACE | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_NAMESPACE This bit instructs the iterator to show namespace nodes, which
are modeled by DTM but not by the DOM. Make sure this does not
conflict with %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. |
SHOW_NOTATION | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_NOTATION Show |
SHOW_PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_PROCESSING_INSTRUCTION Show |
SHOW_TEXT | back to summary |
---|---|
public static final int SHOW_TEXT Show |
acceptNode | back to summary |
---|---|
public short acceptNode(int nodeHandle, int whatToShow) Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
|
acceptNode | back to summary |
---|---|
public short acceptNode(int nodeHandle, int whatToShow, int expandedName) Test whether a specified node is visible in the logical view of a
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.
|