Hello Eric, thank you for your response.
Well, as far as I understand the Digester project, it is a tool that transforms an XML file into an object hierarchy based on certain rules. So one could argue that Digester could replace most of the stuff in the Configuration project by processing (XML) configuration files and creating specific objects an application could use to access its configuration. But the approach of Configuration seems to be a bit different and - as I think - for many applications that just whant to access configuration properties much easier to use: different configuration sources are collected and provided to an application as a single Configuration object. So an application needs only to obtain a Configuration object and query it for single properties instead of bothering with Digester rules. What my code does can be simply seen as adding a new data type to the properties already supported by Configuration: the type configurable object instance. So like an application can ask a Configuration object for a string or long property it can now obtain ready initialized objects. I think this is just an extension to Configuration and does not overlap with Digester. For an application that uses such configurable objects and that already is a client of Configuration it would be more convenient to access these objects directly through Configuration than to set up a set of Digester rules and call this component, too. My code is also not quite complicated; the initialization of the newly created object is internally handled by BeanUtils. The whole thing was intended to be an additional and easy to implement feature for Configuration. What do you think? Oli ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Pugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:30 AM Subject: RE: [configuration][patch] Support for object creation > Oliver.. > > Sorry I missed your earlier post.. So, have you looked at the Digester > commons project? I think it does similar to what your code does.. It takes > in an XML file with various rules about constructores etc and then builds > the objects from that. > > There is also in (I think :-) ) beanutils a simple version of Digester that > hides away a lot of the complexity of digester.. > > Could you highlight how your code and digester are different? It seems also > that what you have done might be better applied to digester as a "simple" > xml format.. > > Lastly, would it make sense to write a digester friendly configuration > converter? In otherwords, something that would take a configuration > objects, feed it to digester and get back objects? > > Eric > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
