These sound good to me (plus the separate one to call
setDigester() appropriately. I just committed the changes.
Craig
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 11:39 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a good reason to enhance Digester to suit the needs. I just
> > don't want to violate our "backwards compatibility" principles (in the
> > Commons charter) for existing Digester users. Extensibility lets us have
> > our cake and eat it too.
>
> definitely
>
> >> i'm feeling pretty confident at the moment that everything's going to
> >> work
> >> out well :)
> >
> > If you find yourself creating one or more Rules implementations that you
> > think make sense to include in the standard Digester package, feel free to
> > throw 'em this way. That might save other people from having to solve the
> > same problem again.
> >
> > And it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if some kind folks added some good
> > JUnit test cases for Digester :-).
>
> here's a patch that replaces the depricated method calls in
> DigesterTestCase.java and adds an additional method that tests the basic
> RulesBase pattern matching rules. the other attachment is a new helper
> class (extending Rule) for testing (so it belongs in src/test/... not src/
> java).
>
> - robert
>
> <Attachment missing>
> <Attachment missing>
