On 12/18/05, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/> > > Any thoughts on the use of <catalog> as the root element vs. <chains> > as shown in the cookbook examples? > > Using <catalog> puts the commands into the default catalog which is > retrieved with CatalogFactory.getInstance().getCatalog(). > > Using <chains> seems to do something else. I haven't figured out if > the commands are going somewhere else, if the config file just isn't > being parsed, (or if I'm imagining it.) <snap/>
As Craig mentions, its in fact better to have <catalogs> (or <foo>, but thats not readable) as the root since that allows placing more than one <catalog> elements in the chain config. Sorry, I'm not sure what <chains> is all about, I'll have to take one more look at the cookbook later. But looking at the trunk I can tell you the only elements of any semantic significance are <catalog>, <chain>, <command> and <define> (by default, though <define> could add others -- and it might even be possible to redefine <command>, which I believe is part of the "insanity" that was refered to ;-). The absence of a DTD and validating digester can indeed cause "silent failures" where the *intent* of the author goes unnoticed. Going back to the question asked, is there anything that can be done to help WRT validation at authoring time for chain configs, short of having users understand the digester? What do folks think about providing a DTD for the defaults, maybe on the wiki? This can provide some "in-editor" validation for the default rule-set, and a user may enhance the DTD for their own custom rules if they see fit (while the digester will continue to not be validating). -Rahul > Thanks, > -- > Wendy > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
