Sylvain wrote:
Timothy Larson wrote:
--- Marc Portier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timothy Larson wrote:
> > > > What do you think of adding an optional "lenient" attribute to the context \
> > binding? > >
+1. I would even set it to true by default.
the top level is set to have a lenient = true
for the bindings deeper down in the tree there is the described three-state-logic:
unset --> no change true/false --> set to specified leniency
> having just done the @direction refactoring I would even suggest to put this also \
> on the top level (JXPathBindingBase) so all binding elements get this feature: >
Making it general sounds good.
I refactored the approach to introduce some CommonAttributes, it should be easier now to add more of those. (should have done that directly with the @direction stuff, but hey)
Do I pick up a hint that you prefer on/off instead of true/false?
Which should we pick for the lenient attribute value:
on/off, true/false, or yes/no?
The name "lenient" came from the JXPathContext API. Is that the best name, or can \
we think of a clearer name for the attribute?
true/false seems good to me...
and the easiest... I wasn't really hinting
Sylvain
I just checked this in, comments welcome.
-marc=
(a bit awkward connected from my working spot here: I do have ssh access to cvs.apache.org but no IMAP connection to the personal mailbox, so sorry for late replies (reading through archives) and messing up your mail-client-threading)
--
Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
