commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 29428] - Digester does not keep "root" variable in sync...
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2004 22:03:24 GMT
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 rdonkin@apache.org  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: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message