[patch][attributes][proposal] support for multiple tags with the same name

[Tim Anderson <tm...@netspace.net.au>]

Hi,
	the attached patch for commons-attributes enables 
support for multiple tags with the same name e.g

class Foo { 

 /**
  * @mytag value1
  * @mytag value2
  */
 public void someMethod() {
 }
}

These can be accessed via the new Attributes.getAttributes() methods
e.g:
  Attribute[] a = Attributes.getAttributes(method, "mytag");

To support the above, I've had to change the serialization 
format. The .attributes file now contains entries of the form
  <prefix>|<tag>|<id>=<value>

e.g:
  class|classDupAttribute|0=classValue1
  class|classDupAttribute|1=classValue2

The SEPARATOR character has been changed from '_' to '|' to avoid
conflicts with member names that contain underscores.


Thoughts?

Thanks,

Tim

RE: [patch][attributes][proposal] support for multiple tags with the same name

[Tim Anderson <tm...@netspace.net.au>]

Hmm - mailserver stripped the attachment out.
Trying again, this time jarred up....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Anderson [mailto:tma@netspace.net.au]
> Sent: Monday, 2 June 2003 9:58 PM
> To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [patch][attributes][proposal] support for multiple tags with
> the same name
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 	the attached patch for commons-attributes enables 
> support for multiple tags with the same name e.g
> 
> class Foo { 
> 
>  /**
>   * @mytag value1
>   * @mytag value2
>   */
>  public void someMethod() {
>  }
> }
> 
> These can be accessed via the new Attributes.getAttributes() methods
> e.g:
>   Attribute[] a = Attributes.getAttributes(method, "mytag");
> 
> To support the above, I've had to change the serialization 
> format. The .attributes file now contains entries of the form
>   <prefix>|<tag>|<id>=<value>
> 
> e.g:
>   class|classDupAttribute|0=classValue1
>   class|classDupAttribute|1=classValue2
> 
> The SEPARATOR character has been changed from '_' to '|' to avoid
> conflicts with member names that contain underscores.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>