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=35858>. 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=35858 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-27 11:07 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Another approach would be to remove this special implementation of subset() in > HierarchicalConfiguration and rely on the implementation in > AbstractConfiguration. Will have to check if the tests then pass. IIRC > HierarchicalConfiguration.subset() had been once removed before the 1.0 > release > and was later re-introduced because of problems with the > ConfigurationXMLDocument class, which later became obsolet. I somehow thought > that subset() after that was removed again, so I am now a bit surprised that > it > exists in HierarchicalConfiguration at all. You are right, the implementation in AbstractConfiguration pass the subset test for HierarchicalConfiguration. The benefit of this implementation is to return a HierarchicalConfiguration, it implies a slight difference that is not covered by our tests. For example with the following structure: foo bar = value1 foo bar = value2 the subset on 'foo' returns a HierarchicalConfiguration that can be queried on the 'bar(0)' and 'bar(1)' keys. It wouldn't work if it was just a SubsetConfiguration translating the keys. -- 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]
