On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, at 03:13 PM, James Strachan wrote:
<snip> (seems a shame to cut so much interesting stuff) </snip>
> I also share your appreciation of XPath (particularly being founder dom4j
> and cofounder of Jaxen ;-) though parsing a document via dom4j or JDOM
> then
> performing XPath expressions on it to figure out which Java Bean objects
> to
> construct may be a little too much for what digester is intended to b. I
> guess it all depends on the complexity of the mapping from XML to beans.
> If
> its fairly simple, then digester rocks as is. If its very complex then
> XPath
> comes into its own.
i'm pretty keen to address the short comings of digester when it comes to
complex schema since i'd like to be able to use digester in code
generation.
i am a bit confused about craig's response to expanding the matching rules.
i wasn't sure whether to understand it as a "go away and write your own
subclasses if you want to do that" or as "the digester team would prefer
that you submit a patch as a subclass rather than a patch on digester
itself".
this whole debate is a bit of a waste of time if the digester team feel
that they want to keep things lightweight (ie. pretty much how they are
now barring bugs). on the other hand, maybe they are simply saying that
they'd like to keep the core lightweight but would be happy for extensions
to be submitted so long as were outside the core. or maybe it's something
completely else :)
can someone please tell where things stand?
- robert
