Re: [Container|Composite]Mapper

[Peter Reilly]

Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Peter Reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

The only thing to keep in mind is that the following (I think)
should still work.
<copy ...>
  <mapper chain="yes">
     <globmapper .../>
     <mymapper ../>
   </mapper>
</copy>
as against:
<copy ....>
   <mapper>
      <chainmapper>
        ...
       </chainmapper>
   </mapper>
</copy>
   

Why is this desirable?  Less wordy or for a different reason.
 

I do not like extra indent levels in general (- see the discussion on 
<local/> :-! )
But on reflection, it may be better to use the <chainmapper> element
in this case, inside an implicit <compositemapper> aka <mapper>

 

or
<copy .....>
 <chainmapper>
   ...
 </chainmapper>
</copy>
   

Should be our goal, but wouldn't work right now, correct?
 

This could be done by adding an  add(Mapper) method to  the Copy class.
I am not too sure that this is a goal as  this in effect makes Copy a 
container
class for mappers, this should be I think done by the Mapper class itself.

Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]