On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 16:26:10 +0000
> From: robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor...
>
> On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 12:51 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
> > Why does the Rule class only provide a constructor that takes a Digester
> > parameter? It is very annoying to have to provide a constructor for
> > rules! Why can't you just add a setDigester() method to the Rule class
> > and let a the Digester instance pass itself to it when the addRule()
> > method is called (did that make sense)? Could a default constructor and
> > a setDigester() method be added to future releases of the Rule class?
>
> having thought about this, i think that i agree. on the other hand, it's
> quite possible that i might have missed something subtle.
>
+1. It should really have been that way all along :-(.
> can anyone else see a reason why i shouldn't make this change?
>
> - robert
>
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
