On 4/16/06, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>35588: Part of the lang.text call.
> > >
> > > I need text.VariableFormatter. If 2.2 does not come out soon, I am
> going
> > > to pluck it out of there for our own use ;)
> >
> > Do you need all its complexity with escaping?
>
> I want to provide our users with highly flexible configuration files
> (and scripts) where Java system properties and environment variables are
> available.
>
> It is possible that some of our users would need escaping things like
> '$' and '{}'. The flexibility I would be willing to give up is what
> characters to use for $ and {}, but this is the part that adds the least
> amount of complexity.
>
> If you are thinking of removing the ability to do things that correspond
> to "${aVarPiece${anotherPiece}}", then I am somewhat indifferent right
> now. It just seems like a lot of work to undo the code and the unit
> tests since the current implementation works and it well covered by unit
> tests. Furthermore, it seems to me like once a feature like
> VariableFormatter is released, implementing the above feature would be
> the next step in the evolution of the class. Just my POV though...
+1 to the escaping - it seems like it's just doing the right thing,
not an increased feature.
Increased feature would be: ${ENV.foo} :) Where ENV means the
environment (or ${D.foo} where it means the standard env).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
