hi ceki digester has grown rather than been designed and poor naming is one of the consequences.
the concepts behind them are very clear (once you understand them) but as digester has grown, the word 'rule' has probably become rather over-used. 'Rules' implementations are really 'Rule' pattern matchers. they know how to return a set of rules that match a given pattern. this interface allows different pattern matchers with different rules about pattern matching to be plugged in. possible something like PatternMatcher might have been a better name. i also think that you're probably right that renaming Rule into Action would reduce confusion and allow the documentation to talk about a rule as pattern plus an action. unfortunately, these are all core classes and so renaming them would be a big step. - robert On Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 12:58 PM, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > Am I the only one that finds the disctinction between Rule, Rules and > RuleSet confusing? > > Isn't a Rule really an Action? Wouldn't it be better to name Rule as > Action such that a Rule becomes the association of a pattern and an > Action? One would then write Digester.addRule(String pattern, Action > action) instead of Digester.addRule(String pattern, Rule rule). > > Has this been suggested before? I have checked in the mailing lists > and could not find any references. My apologies if this has been > already debated. Regards. > > > -- > Ceki > > > -- > 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]>
