robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 08:30 PM, Christopher Lenz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The *only* problem regarding backwards-compatibility is that the
>> rules instance variable would need to be removed or simply ignored by
>> Digester.
>> So the only API client affected by these changes would be those who
>> don'
>> t use the accessor methods to access the rules, but rather access it
>> directly.
>
>
> yeh - i see what you've done now. any subclass which accesses the
> rules field directly will be broken - but it has an easy workaround
> (us an accessor) and i'm happy to live with that.
>
> i'm pretty happy with the way that this is heading but maybe it'd be
> easier for more people to review these changes and suggest
> improvements if we had them in cvs. maybe a branch is the right way to
> go forward. (we can merge back once everyone's happy with the changes.)
+1 That will be easier to make improvements, if we need to :-). But from
the patch, seems really good work.
-- Jeanfrancois
>
>
> comments?
>
> - robert
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|