Hi Emmanuel, Re your comments on bugzilla http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12997
I'd like to transfer this discussion to email rather than bugzilla form, if that's ok. It's a pain typing and reading bugzilla comments :-) I guess the problem is that the bugzilla entry is now addressing two separate issues: (a) A testcase fix is required to ensure that no patch changes the current CallMethodRule invocation order, and (b) an enhancement request from you (2002-10-30) to add a new rule or add an optional feature to the existing CallMethodRule. I've just fixed (a), but (b) is still pending it seems.. Your comment of 2002-10-30 said that the digester test cases were running fine, and asked for a quick example that would break with your patch. Well, that is clearly a flaw with the existing test cases, and the test case change I recently committed provides that example you asked for. The test you did with Tomcat (broke with your patch) shows that the current CallMethodRule invocation order is deliberate and should not change. Are you intending to create an alternate version of your attached patch which implements a new rule (eg CallMethodImmediateRule), or an enhancement to CallMethodRule which adds this behaviour as *optional* and *off-by-default*? I'm neutral on this myself. But if you do, it might be nice to create a new Bugzilla entry so we can close this existing one which is now rather confusing due to the two intermixed issues. I don't really understand Craig's comments re "hierarchical structure that is isomorphic to a tree of beans that is being created". However I do understand his comment re "backwards incompatibility problem", which is what I have addressed here. Comments? Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
