I would think that it should be deprecated. Scott
> -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:25 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor... > > > 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: > <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
