> I think wrap is a bit strong, as we will require each field > individually to > add in the html required to do table cells and such. But I > get what you are > talking about. >
Couldn't each line be represented by one pattern? e.g. the pattern string might be: <td>%C</td><td>%M</td> ...... You get what I mean.. I would have thought that a PatternLayout string could handle each row's data in a single call. Unless I'm missing something. > The PatternParser would need a new method like getFormattingItem() or > something like that, and then when each instance of the > PatternParser (or > sub-class) is initiated it determines what data it's > formatiing and allows > access to that name.. > > What's the chance of getting this addition to the PatternParser's? > Propose a more detailed change that you think is reasonable, and useful, and it should always be received well, but I guess it'll depend how it is. Good thinking though. Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
