On Monday, July 30, 2001, at 09:13 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>> On Monday, July 30, 2001, at 06:15 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Incze Lajos wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ... etc. Ithink that in digester it would be a good idea to change the
>>>> JSP-ish matching rules to XPATH expressions. At the same time digester
>>>> could use JDOM or DOM4J (they have esstially the same XPATH engine).
>>>> XPATH was designed to walk through an XML graph, so you can express
>>>> as complex or as simple rules as you want. both JDOM and DOM4j gives
>>>> you a pretty convenient (I mean collections) interface to the
>>>> document. Comments?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a problem with thinking about different rule matching
>>> syntaxes (it would be simple to use regular expressions, for example).
>>> But, fundamentally, the current Digester is a wrapper around SAX, not
>>> around a DOM tree of any sort.
>>
>> you're right, of course.
>>
>> darn - wish i'd got your last email before i'd sent my last reply :)
>>
>> full support for regex's isn't really needed to solve the problem of
>> using
>> digester with complex schema. the minimum is the ability to have some
>> matching rules which can bypass the longest-key principle for matching
>> patterns and having the ability to match children of a particular parent.
>>
>
> The set of rules that match a particular match string is determined
> totally within the getRules() method. While we might talk about what the
> *default* implementation should do, can't you just subclass Digester with
> your own getRules() method? Or is there something else I'm missing?
of course i could produce my own subclass :)
i'd much rather expand the capabilities of digester and work with the
digester development team and enhance digester so that it can cope with
large, complex schema and mappings rather than end up with digester2 as
part of another project.
- robert
