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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
