DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29428>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29428 Digester does not keep "root" variable in sync... ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-09 22:03 ------- On the use of clear()... I'm not sure that clear() is very useful but it's there in the API and i see no reason to deprecate it or to patch it since is works pretty much as advertised. I'd much prefer a new reset() method which could do other things (such as nulling the root) On pooling Digester instances... I'm not against pooling Digester instances but I am a little sceptical about the performance gains in most common use cases. It isn't an itch of mine. So, i'm unlikely to actively work towards being able to safely pool Digester though i wouldn't object to backwards compatible changes to assist pooling. On reusing Rule instances... In general, people can create Rule implementations that cannot be used safely more than once. But I agree with Simon's analysis that most of the common Rule implementation can be reused safely. On compilation... This would be very cool but a lot of work. Not an itch for me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
