commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [digester][review] New Schema supports
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:54:45 GMT
On 4 Dec 2003, at 18:13, Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:

> Simon Kitching wrote:


>> If the user finds their parser is not supported they do
>> have a fallback: the options listed at the start of this email. These
>> options are just as simple as someone writing a separate Factory for
>> their parser type, and less baggage for Digester to be carrying 
>> around.
> That's a valid argument (This is exactly what I did in Tomcat)...but I 
> think making life easier for the user is better, and hiding the XML 
> schema complexity is a way to explore.


(that's why i prodded JeanFrancois to come up with something like this 

we've had a lot of issues with users digesting documents with schemas 
posted to the lists. yep, there are ways to solve them (and we should 
probably patch the documentation to tell users that they should 
probably be tuning their parsers direct) but many users want to be able 
to digest without knowing or caring about the parser they are using. 
(for example, me :)

there's also the issue of portability - digester is often used in web 
apps. the actual parser which will be used may be unknown when the web 
app is created. it'd be nice to support portability even if this means 
putting in parser specific code.

i think that the code is fine but i'd like to try to improve the 
structure. (i've had some bad experiences in the past with static 
utility classes in beanutils). i'd like to make it easy for developers 
to post easy patches supporting other parsers which we can easily plug 
in. but i'll need a little more time to think about this before i can 
come up with anything more concrete...

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message