On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to go ahead and merge it to the 1.6 branch...
+1 > before that happens we should hopefully resolve any > conflict regarding the name of it... I personally am > glad enough to have it under any name... so any > conflict is (so far) between you and Stefan on that > issue... Conflict is too big a word. Thank you for bringing this up again, I have not forgotten about it (nor about reviewing the redirector stuff). Let's see. ContainerMapper allows us to use more than one mapper and it knows about two modes of operation. In the first mode, the contained mappers are chained to each other so that mapper two gets the results of mapper one and works on it. In the second mode, each mapper gets the original from and the result is the union of all results of the contained mappers. Is this correct? I'd probably prefer this implemented by two classes and call them CompositeMapper and ChainedMapper (MapperChain?) - probably using a ContainerMapper (MapperContainer?) as abstract base. BTW, it would probably be a good idea to remove duplicates in non-chained mode, at least as an option. Using a Set instead of a List for ret would do that. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
