It doesn't really matter to me which way this is implemented but now
that it's done, I think we should not keep changing it.  The advantage
of the old way was that it was more flexible because you could pass in
XPaths and non-strings.  However, this flexibility came at a price of
increased confusion.

I can think of a couple of things to do:
1.  Use the Xalan-supplied evaluate() extension function on your
parameters and then you can still pass in XPaths and numbers.
2.  This behavior is not part of the API, it's completely within
Process.main().  It could be enhanced to provide another switch like
-PARAMX or something and that would pass in an XPath just like the old
way.

The problem with solution (1) is that it creates a non-portable
spreadsheet.  Perhaps you'd like to try enhancing Process and contribute
the results back.  Or, if that's not an alternative, I'd enter this as
an enhancement into bugzilla so that it can be tracked.

Gary

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> It changed because so many people complained about the XalanJ 1.x behavior.
> The question is whether you want -PARAM to get an expression or a literal
> value.  Too many people did -PARAM someValueWithoutQuotes and were
> surprised when they didn't get anything in their parameter.
> 
> I don't think I want to go back to the old behavior.  Other opinions?
> 
> -scott
> 
> 
>                     "Noel L Yap"
>                     <yap_noel@jpm        To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                     organ.com>           cc:     (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)
>                                          Subject:     -PARAM command line option
>                     07/10/01
>                     09:37 AM
>                     Please
>                     respond to
>                     xalan-dev
> 
> 
> 
> In xalan 1.x, I used to have to wrap the values in single quotes (ie -PARAM
> variable-name "'variable-value'").  I think the old way was more consistent
> (eg
> the parameter gets replaced with exactly what you set it to).  Why has this
> changed in xalan 2.x?  How are number values to be passed in?  Can the
> behaviour
> be changed back?
> 
> I'm not sure whether this behaviour is part of the API, or if it's
> completely
> within Process.main().
> 
> Thanks,
> Noel
> 
> This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended
> as
> an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial
> instrument
> or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
> and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
> are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made
> herein
> do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
> subsidiaries and affiliates.

Reply via email to