You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> on 2002/03/09 01:51:08 UTC
org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
Why does the Rule class only provide a constructor that takes a Digester parameter? It is very annoying to have to provide a constructor for rules! Why can't you just add a setDigester() method to the Rule class and let a the Digester instance pass itself to it when the addRule() method is called (did that make sense)? Could a default constructor and a setDigester() method be added to future releases of the Rule class?
Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:26:10 +0000
> From: robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 12:51 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Why does the Rule class only provide a constructor that takes a Digester
> > parameter? It is very annoying to have to provide a constructor for
> > rules! Why can't you just add a setDigester() method to the Rule class
> > and let a the Digester instance pass itself to it when the addRule()
> > method is called (did that make sense)? Could a default constructor and
> > a setDigester() method be added to future releases of the Rule class?
>
> having thought about this, i think that i agree. on the other hand, it's
> quite possible that i might have missed something subtle.
>
+1. It should really have been that way all along :-(.
> can anyone else see a reason why i shouldn't make this change?
>
> - robert
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>.
On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 12:51 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Why does the Rule class only provide a constructor that takes a Digester
> parameter? It is very annoying to have to provide a constructor for
> rules! Why can't you just add a setDigester() method to the Rule class
> and let a the Digester instance pass itself to it when the addRule()
> method is called (did that make sense)? Could a default constructor and
> a setDigester() method be added to future releases of the Rule class?
having thought about this, i think that i agree. on the other hand, it's
quite possible that i might have missed something subtle.
can anyone else see a reason why i shouldn't make this change?
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@mac.com>.
hi james
i've committed changes along the lines you suggested,
i haven't deprecated the old constructor taking a digester as a parameter
- yet. do people think that it should be deprecated?
- robert
On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 12:51 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Why does the Rule class only provide a constructor that takes a Digester
> parameter? It is very annoying to have to provide a constructor for
> rules! Why can't you just add a setDigester() method to the Rule class
> and let a the Digester instance pass itself to it when the addRule()
> method is called (did that make sense)? Could a default constructor and
> a setDigester() method be added to future releases of the Rule class?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>