"Jakarta Commons Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I like the way you worded that. I "discovered" it too. ;-) >This really needs to go into the documentation if it is in fact the best >way >to do this.
I agree. I found it via the API docs. > >Yes, that would certainly work. I'm just thinking that if I have an >element >with 20 different child elements, I don't want to create a class for each >of >the child elements and have to tell each one to pass its data up to the >parent. Well, you still have to create a class for each child element, don't you? You need something to operate on the tag. I would think all the parent/child handling code could go in a single superclass tag or an interface with an operator class to do the passing, rather than reimplementing it in each child tag. > I guess what I really want is a way to treat child elements like >attributes are treated ... set methods are automatically called. For >example, I want > ><foo> > <bar>7</bar> ></foo> > >to result in creation of a foo object and the call foo.setBar(7). In this case, bar is an element/object, not an attibute/primitive value, so the above code should not call foo.setBar(7). It would be identical to <foo bar="7" />. Maybe what you want is the parent tag to automatically maintain a list of its children and then provide access to the child tags/beans. While I don't like wasting a superclass (super to Foo but sub of TagSupport) it would be easy enough to implement this for you own work (if/until the Jelly folks add the feature). > Daryl Stultz _____________________________________ 6 Degrees Software and Consulting, Inc. http://www.6degrees.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
