[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:06 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Configuration] Formatting of dom4j digester tag
Eric,
I think you are right with that className attribute. I have only
restored support for it (for in the actual implementation
Okay, then I will change the element name to hierarchicalDom4j, remove
the support for the className attribute (well I'm not sure if I should
really remove this or leave it as undocumented feature; it's about a
view lines in ConfigurationFactory that won't hurt) and update the
examples and the
-
From: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:14 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [Configuration] Formatting of dom4j digester tag
Okay, then I will change the element name to
hierarchicalDom4j, remove
the support for the className
Eric Pugh wrote:
Um.. I would suggest just removing the code.. My fear when it comes to
undocumented features is that the next committer won't have any idea what is
going on, and will accidentally break something, especially if we don't have
a unit test backing it up!
Sounds reasonable, I
Eric,
I think you are right with that className attribute. I have only
restored support for it (for in the actual implementation it was not
even evaluated) because the examples in the overview.html all had a
className attribute. And at this time this was the easiest possibility
to include
