At 20:28 16.05.2002 +0100, you wrote: >On Wednesday, May 15, 2002, at 10:04 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > ><snip> > >>We almost certainly do not need BeanPropertySetterRule in any case its a >>variant of SetPropertyRule. As for SetTopRule, SetRootRule, SetNextRule, >>CallMethodRule, although very generic, imho they make it harder to follow >>and understand rule sets. I always try to avoid using them. >> >>Does my claim about not needing beanutils in log4j make more sense now? > >yes i think so. > >you plan to use only the digester engine and then create your own custom >rules. these custom rules are going to use internal log4j introspection >code (where needed) and therefore won't require beanutils.
A rather primitive version of beanutils can be found at org.apache.log4j.config. >you're not bothered about not supporting the most popular digester rules >since you'd expect people to creating their own custom rules. Yes. I find it much quicker and safer to write a new Action (o.a.c.digester.Rule) in just a few lines of java than writing multiple pattern/rule pairs using the standard rules but that's just me. >is this a fair summary? Yes. >have you thought about what you're going to do about patten matching rules? Yes, I have given it some thought. Although the hierarchical rules extension of the digester model is cool (hey it's my idea), I am trying to find ways of sticking to the original digester model and not introducing hierarchical Rules (i.e. o.a.c.digester.Rules). I'll be sure to look at betwixt and xo. Thanks for the pointers by the way. >on a different track, i suppose the one advantage of using a completely >rewritten digester is that you can use those improved names with fear of >breaking backwards compatibility. :-) >- robert -- Ceki -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
