by all means, submit a patch.I don't want to squash Sean's enthusiasm, but I don't yet understand the need for this modification.
but i'd prefer an attribute name to be passed in rather than using the first attribute. (i have a feeling that the order of attributes can be parser dependent.) when the attribute name isn't present, then just don't create anything. since ObjectCreateRule already has a constructor taking a string, then maybe i'd add a factory method that pass a null classname in the two string constructor. you'll need to add a test for null's into the body method.
Robert's concern about the attribute is correct, because nothing anywhere in XML guarantees the order of attributes for an element. They're just a soup of names and values. So then if you require the attribute name to be passed in, how is this substantially different than indicating a base class in the rule. Couldn't Sean achieve his goals with the existing code and using "java.lang.Object" as the base class?
While it's great to encourage participation, it's worth while to exercise restraint with APIs.
Ultimately, if Sean really doesn't like the ObjectCreateRule, I would suggest that in this case he should just write his own rule implementation that behaves the way he needs it to.
Sean, can you help me understand why the existing API can't be used to serve your needs?
Joe
--
--
* Joe Germuska { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
"It's pitiful, sometimes, if they've got it bad. Their eyes get glazed, they go white, their hands tremble.... As I watch them I often feel that a dope peddler is a gentleman compared with the man who sells records."
--Sam Goody, 1956
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
