> Johannes Verelst wrote: > > I would like to propose this implementation as a HACK in a few days, so > > please send your comments on this code now, to prevent having > > implementation-specific comments during the hack vote. > > The main 'issue' I have with the approach is that the original setup of > teh dove xpath parameter went for the 'xpath' look (ok, stupid idea, sue > me), and this one doesn't. > My suggestion is to abandon the xpath look, at least for the extension.
I agree, it is a real ugly hack to do it this way, and I would prefer a small rewrite here to make it cleaner. > Two ways to solve this: > > 1. Add a new 'path' parameter. Keep the xpath parameter as is, (with > its 'xpath' like syntax), but either deprecate it or note it as a > possible alternate syntax. > > 2. alter the xpath parameter so it also accepts non-'xpath' syntaxes > (which effectively means it ignores the first three chars if they are '/*@') > > I favor 1 because I think it is silly to have a 'xpath' parameter that > doesn't have an xpath syntax. > No further comments on the hack so far. I agree, but this would mean that the Dove interface gets changed, and I'm not a big fan of interface changes. Maybe rewriting this interface is something more suitable for the cleaning project? Changing the interface within a minor-release of the stable branch doesnt 'feel' right, especially when it's not desperately needed. Johannes -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | It is always possible to agglutinate multiple [EMAIL PROTECTED] | seperate problems into a single complex inter- PGP ID: 0xFED127BD | dependent solution. In most cases this is a Tel: 035-6474202 | bad idea. (RFC 1925, Truth 5)
