Eric Pugh wrote:
Um.. I would suggest just removing the code.. My fear when it comes to
undocumented features is that the next committer won't have any idea what is
going on, and will accidentally break something, especially if we don't have
a unit test backing it up!
Sounds reasonable, I wil
; -Original Message-
> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:14 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Configuration] Formatting of digester tag
>
>
> Okay, then I will change the element name to
>
Okay, then I will change the element name to hierarchicalDom4j, remove
the support for the className attribute (well I'm not sure if I should
really remove this or leave it as undocumented feature; it's about a
view lines in ConfigurationFactory that won't hurt) and update the
examples and the
om: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:06 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Configuration] Formatting of digester tag
>
>
> Eric,
>
> I think you are right with that className attribute. I have only
>
Eric,
I think you are right with that className attribute. I have only
restored support for it (for in the actual implementation it was not
even evaluated) because the examples in the overview.html all had a
className attribute. And at this time this was the easiest possibility
to include Hier
Oliver,
I was looking through the docs, and the /examples.html was a great way to
go! Something that kinda jumped out at me, having really looked at the
examples is the case where we want to load up a
HierarchicalDOM4JConfiguration:
It looks a little weird to have this optional attribute "clas
