You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Simon Kitching <si...@ecnetwork.co.nz> on 2004/03/02 22:09:22 UTC
[digester] PathCallParamRule
Hi,
I think we need a CallParamRule variant which saves the matching tagname
as a method call parameter. This mail was prompted by a user question
about building a HashMap using this kind of data:
<item>
<foo>1</foo>
<bar>2</bar>
</item>
where the tagnames within an item are not known in advance.
There is in CVS a new class PathCallParamRule which passes the whole
path. I suggest that we add a flag to this method to pass just the
tagname rather than the whole path. Alternatively, we could have a
completely separate rule for just the tag name.
On the subject of CallParamRule variants: they are getting a little
messy now.
I suggest that we adopt a naming standard of:
CallParamWithXXXRule
for all call-param-rule variants, so that it is easier for users to find
the available param rules. This would mean renaming PathCallParamRule to
CallParamWithPathRule. I would also suggest creating a
CallParamWithObjectRule which is a copy of ObjectCallParamRule, and
marking ObjectCallParamRule as deprecated.
Or even more alternatively, we could roll all existing param-related
rule functionality into the CallParamRule, and have a constructor which
takes some enum-like flag to say which behaviour we want:
digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.TAGNAME, 0);
digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.ATTR, 0);
digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.BODY, 0);
digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.MATCHPATH, 0);
This would clean up the existing CallParamRule constructor API, which
has grown rather ugly as features have been added.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [digester] PathCallParamRule
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 2 Mar 2004, at 21:09, Simon Kitching wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we need a CallParamRule variant which saves the matching
> tagname
> as a method call parameter. This mail was prompted by a user question
> about building a HashMap using this kind of data:
> <item>
> <foo>1</foo>
> <bar>2</bar>
> </item>
> where the tagnames within an item are not known in advance.
>
> There is in CVS a new class PathCallParamRule which passes the whole
> path. I suggest that we add a flag to this method to pass just the
> tagname rather than the whole path. Alternatively, we could have a
> completely separate rule for just the tag name.
either seems fine to me (though possible another rule might possible be
a little easy for a user to find). anyone else have any views on this?
> On the subject of CallParamRule variants: they are getting a little
> messy now.
>
> I suggest that we adopt a naming standard of:
> CallParamWithXXXRule
> for all call-param-rule variants, so that it is easier for users to
> find
> the available param rules. This would mean renaming PathCallParamRule
> to
> CallParamWithPathRule. I would also suggest creating a
> CallParamWithObjectRule which is a copy of ObjectCallParamRule, and
> marking ObjectCallParamRule as deprecated.
i think that tidying up the CallParam stuff is overdue.
the proposed naming scheme sounds pretty intuitive to me. if anyone
disagrees, then now's a good time to jump in.
> Or even more alternatively, we could roll all existing param-related
> rule functionality into the CallParamRule, and have a constructor which
> takes some enum-like flag to say which behaviour we want:
> digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.TAGNAME, 0);
> digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.ATTR, 0);
> digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.BODY, 0);
> digester.addCallParam(pattern, CallParamRule.MATCHPATH, 0);
>
> This would clean up the existing CallParamRule constructor API, which
> has grown rather ugly as features have been added.
i think either of these proposals sounds like definite improvements. i
have a slight dislike of enum-like flags so i that
digester.addCallParamWithTagName(pattern, 0);
digester.addCallParamWithAttribute(pattern, 0);
digester.addCallParamWithBody(pattern, 0);
digester.addCallParamWithMatchingPath(pattern, 0);
might be better. i don't feel very strongly about this so i'd be
interested to hear what other people think.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org