The only other way I see is to parse the configuration manually that would give you the flexibility, but the side effect is that IDEs would loose completion information
On 3 January 2013 14:34, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>wrote: > Up the major version number so. > > > On 3 January 2013 13:44, Tony Chemit <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:37:17 +0000 >> Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > What I did (and it confused users no end) is bind the string to a >> different >> > field and have that field filled using the property name... so that >> anyone >> > doing >> > >> > -Dfoo.bar=...,...,... >> > >> > would populate the string field >> > >> > but anyone doing >> > >> > <bars> >> > <bar>...</bar> >> > <bar>...</bar> >> > <bar>...</bar> >> > </bars> >> > >> > would be populating the String[] field. >> >> Hum, but actually, users can do >> >> <bars>...,...,...</bars> >> >> that's my problem. >> >> I could change as you tolld but it will break compat which can be ok >> perhaps ... >> >> -- >> Tony Chemit >> -------------------- >> tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28 >> email: [email protected] >> http://www.codelutin.com >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> >
