Unintuitive, possibly broken behaviour.
---------------------------------------

                 Key: DIGESTER-143
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIGESTER-143
             Project: Commons Digester
          Issue Type: Improvement
    Affects Versions: 2.1
         Environment: Linux 64 bits
            Reporter: i30817
            Priority: Minor


When one tag is a substring of another tag and both are used as xml patterns, 
such as:
"rdf:RDF/pgterms:etext/dc:creator"
"rdf:RDF/pgterms:etext/dc:creator/rdf:Bag/rdf:li" (instances in a collection of 
creators)

the callback to the first is called once with empty strings ((") as the body of 
the tag.

If additionally the first tag has a argument 
"rdf:RDF/pgterms:etext/dc:creator rdf:type="Literal"" and you bind things 
correctly for a two arguments callback with the text body and the argument 
value ("Literal"), the callback of the first will be called with a null 
rdf:type argument and a empty string as the body.

The best thing would be if these empty strings callback were avoidable. I can 
just test for empty string in the callback, however, i'm trying also to create 
assertions on the xml content (including, no empty strings). I can 
differentiate the first callback with the tag argument and it test against null 
to filter that case, but that leads to messy code.

If the bogus callback must exist, one of the ways to make it obvious and 
distinguishable, would be to use null as the default value, instead of "". No 
xml document will have the computation null value, unless some very strange 
java binding is happening, in which case, you're asking for trouble. "" is even 
worse, because it is common to both domains.

So RFE:
1) Avoid the bogus callback of the smaller xml tree branch if you can.
2) if you can't, use null as a argument instead of the indistinguishable "".
3) if 2) document this behavior in the javadoc and the digester FAQ.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to