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
> 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...