Thanks for explaining. That's ok for me then.

On 15.02.2006 14:37:13 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2006, at 14:23, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Why did you discard my suggestion about PropertyTokenizer? Is there
> > something wrong with that? I think it would be a more general  
> > solution.
> Oh, sorry, it's not really about 'discarding'... It just seemed more  
> 'proper'.
> Allow me to explain: The way I understand the Properties API, a null  
> is simply never meant to make it into the PropertyParser/ 
> PropertyTokenizer. As a last resort, the whole chain of calls  
> starting at PropertyList.get() should ultimately return the default  
> value if a value cannot be obtained by any other means (inheritance,  
> shorthands and the like). This default value is, I admit, undefined  
> for a few shorthands. Setting their default value to an empty string  
> avoids a null from being handed over to PropertyParser.
> Which solution is better? Gosh, I wish Finn were online now to share  
> some insights...

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to