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



Reply via email to