Okay, I put the missing code back in..   It would be nice to have a unit test that 
caught that.

Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:07 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: ConfigurationFactory and hierarchicalDom4j
> 
> 
> This is strange: If you have a look at the source xrefs for the 
> ConfigurationFactory class at 
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/configuration/xref/org/apach
> e/commons/configuration/ConfigurationFactory.html
> you will see that the missing rule is present. So it must have been 
> accidently deleted in one of the last commits(?).
> Oliver
> 
> Eric Pugh schrieb:
> 
> > Oliver, would you like to submit a patch for this?  Also, 
> if you could submit a unit test showing the problem..  Not 
> good when all the unit tests pass, but a bug still exists!
> > 
> > In terms of a release, basically we are just wrangling over 
> whether to throw a ConfigurationException..  At this point, 
> the feeling seems to be that no good solution really exists 
> right now.  We need (in Configuration 2 or 1.5 or whatever) 
> to refactor the process of loading a configuration object 
> from the process of having a configuration object.   That way 
> cool stuff like multiple reloading strategies etc become possible.
> > 
> > At this point, there are a coupld throws Exception that I 
> am going to replace with a checked 
> ConfigurationInitializationException or ConfigurationLoadException...
> > 
> > So, 1.0 is coming down the pike very soon..   
> > 
> > Eric
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >   From: Oliver Kim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 8:27 AM
> >   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   Subject: ConfigurationFactory and hierarchicalDom4j
> > 
> > 
> >   You guys probably would have figured this out pretty 
> quickly, but since I found it, I thought I'd let you know...
> > 
> >   The following code snipped should contain a rule for 
> hierarchicalDom4j:
> > 
> >       protected void initDigesterSectionRules(Digester digester,
> >       String matchString, boolean additional)
> >       {
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "properties",
> >               new 
> BasePathConfigurationFactory(PropertiesConfiguration.class),
> >               METH_LOAD,
> >               additional);
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "dom4j",
> >               new 
> BasePathConfigurationFactory(DOM4JConfiguration.class),
> >               METH_LOAD,
> >               additional);
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "jndi",
> >               new JNDIConfigurationFactory(),
> >               null,
> >               additional);
> >       }
> > 
> > 
> >   Like so:
> > 
> >       protected void initDigesterSectionRules(Digester digester,
> >       String matchString, boolean additional)
> >       {
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "properties",
> >               new 
> BasePathConfigurationFactory(PropertiesConfiguration.class),
> >               METH_LOAD,
> >               additional);
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "dom4j",
> >               new 
> BasePathConfigurationFactory(DOM4JConfiguration.class),
> >               METH_LOAD,
> >               additional);
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "hierarchicalDom4j",
> >               new 
> BasePathConfigurationFactory(HierarchicalDOM4JConfiguration.class),
> >               METH_LOAD,
> >               additional);
> >           setupDigesterInstance(
> >               digester,
> >               matchString + "jndi",
> >               new JNDIConfigurationFactory(),
> >               null,
> >               additional);
> >       }
> > 
> >   It seems to work fine once you do this.
> > 
> >   As an aside?  How close do you think Configuration is to 
> release?  I'm considering using it in one of my projects.
> > 
> >   Thanks,
> > 
> >   Oliver Kim
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oliver Heger
> Zentrale Informationsverarbeitung (ZIV) / Bereich Anwenderverfahren
> Klinikum der Philipps-UniversitÃt Marburg
> BunsenstraÃe 3,
> D-35037 Marburg
> Tel: +49 6421 28-66592
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to