i've now committed changes that comprehensively deprecate those constuctors in Rule and Rule subclasses.
i've added replacement methods to the subclasses without the Digester parameter and modified Digester so that it calls these constructors. - robert On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 04:35 AM, Scott Sanders wrote: > I would think that it should be deprecated. > > Scott > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:25 PM >> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List >> Subject: Re: org.apache.commons.digester.Rule constructor... >> >> >> hi james >> >> i've committed changes along the lines you suggested, >> >> i haven't deprecated the old constructor taking a digester as >> a parameter >> - yet. do people think that it should be deprecated? >> >> - robert >> >> 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? >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> <mailto:commons-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For >> additional commands, >> e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. > org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. > org> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
