I just wanted to know if this change was on purpose. I thought you might have done this on purpose and I understand how it breaks the JavaBean model for setters and getters. I can change it to a comma delimitted list. I just though having the a separate element for each file was cleaner at least on the xml side.
David --- "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, David Winterfeldt wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:44:43 -0800 (PST) > > From: David Winterfeldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Struts Developers List > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Struts Developers List > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: PlugIn (Craig) > > > > It looks like when you made changes to the PlugIn > > Craig that it broke the ValidatorPlugIn. Having > > multiple set-property elements under the plug-in > used > > to work, but now it looks like only the last one > is > > being kept. It looks like the addition of > > PlugInSetPropertyRule in ConfigRuleSet broke this. > > You probably know the digester better than I do if > > this could be changed. Or point me in the right > > direction if you don't have time to do this. > > > > <plug-in > > > className="org.apache.struts.validator.ValidatorPlugIn"> > > <set-property property="pathname" > > value="/WEB-INF/validator-rules.xml"/> > > <set-property property="pathname" > > value="/WEB-INF/validation.xml"/> > > </plug-in> > > > > The change to the PlugIn configuration did indeed > change this, but I'm not > so sure it's a "bad thing" that needs to be fixed. > > The basic issue is that PlugInConfig maintains a > simple name-value Map for > the configured properties, which is then returned > via getProperties() and > then used as an argument to BeanUtils.populate() to > configure the > instantiated PlugIn object. So, supporting your > syntax above would > require either an API modification, or a change to > the contract about what > PlugInConfig.getProperties() returns. > > My discomfort with going ahead and doing this is > based on the fact that it > is somewhat counterintuitive to expect a JavaBean > property setter for a > scalar String property to accept and use multiple > values when called > mulitple times -- the user of such a bean is going > to expect replacement > semantics in this scenario. It would also not be > possible to implement > configuration of this if we extended the DTD to > include a specific PlugIn > (and could therefore use attributes instead of > nested <set-property/> > elements), because XML doesn't allow multiple > attributes with the same > name. > > Wouldn't it be better to use a comma-delimited list > (or something like > that) so you can set this with one setPathname() > method? > > > David > > > > Craig > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
