DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32756>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32756 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-18 12:19 ------- This behaviour is deliberate, and not a bug. Wildcard patterns are ignored if an explicit match can be found (and when multiple wildcard patterns match, only the longest, ie most explicit, pattern is considered a match). The intent is that rules can be added for "an <a> tag anywhere", but then for that behaviour to be explicitly overridden for specific cases, eg "but not an <a> that is a direct child of an <x>". If you have rules A and B registered for pattern "*/a", then want to add an additional rule C for pattern "x/a" only, then what you need to do is add *three* rules for "x/a": A,B and C. Note that by using Rule ruleA = new ObjectCreateRule(); Rule ruleB = new SetNextRule(); Rule ruleC = new SetPropertiesRule(); digester.addRule("*/a", ruleA); digester.addRule("*/a", ruleB); digester.addRule("x/a", ruleA); digester.addRule("x/a", ruleB); digester.addRule("x/a", ruleC); you have associated the same rule instances A and B with multiple patterns, thus avoiding creating extra rule object instances. I agree this behaviour (explicit rules override wildcard rules in the default RulesBase rule-matching class) is not properly documented, and will leave this bug open as a reminder to add proper javadocs on this subject. Sorry if this caused any confusion... NB1: I don't see why your datadecriptor/.../property patterns didn't match. They should as far as I can see. NB2: In general, I think SetRootRule should be avoided as it *generally* implies that the xml's explicit nesting is not being properly respected. I suggest using alternative rules if possible. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
