[dbdoclet] Re: Constant field values revisited - appendix vs chapter?

Hello Clifton,

thank you for your bug report. I will fix this in the next release of 
dbdoclet.

Regards
Michael

Clifton L. McLellan schrieb:

>Hi Michael,
>
>If you are looking at constant field values code could you also take a
>look at escaping entities in the constant values?  For example, we have
>tools that build SQL expressions interactively and have definitions like
>the following:
>
>  public final static String OPER_GREATER_THAN           = ">";
>  public final static String OPER_GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUALS = ">=";
>  public final static String OPER_LESS_THAN              = "<";
>  public final static String OPER_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUALS    = "<=";
>
>When processed, dbdoclet creates constructs like:
>
>  <row>
>    <entry><para>OPER_GREATER_THAN</para></entry>
>    <entry><para>></para></entry>
>  </row>
>  <row>
>    <entry><para>OPER_GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUALS</para></entry>
>    <entry><para>>=</para></entry>
>  </row>
>  <row>
>    <entry><para>OPER_LESS_THAN</para></entry>
>    <entry><para><</para></entry>
>  </row>
>  <row>
>    <entry><para>OPER_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUALS</para></entry>
>    <entry><para><=</para></entry>
>  </row>
>
>which fails on OPER_LESS_THAN when it finds two consecutive left angle
>brackets. My current (simplistic) solution is to change our source code
>to
>
>  public final static String OPER_GREATER_THAN           = "&gt;";
>  public final static String OPER_GREATER_THAN_OR_EQUALS = "&gt;=";
>  public final static String OPER_LESS_THAN              = "&lt;";
>  public final static String OPER_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUALS    = "&lt;=";
>
>before processing with dbdoclet. Perhaps other people have seen the same
>problem. 
>
>--
>Thanks for the great tool!
>Clifton
>
>Clifton L. McLellan
>Senior Software Engineer
>Predicate Logic, Inc.
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dbdoclet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:dbdoclet-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Fuchs
>Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 12:49 PM
>To: dbdoclet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jere.Kapyaho@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [dbdoclet] Re: Constant field values revisited - appendix vs
>chapter?
>
>
>Hello Jere,
>
>I will make this configurable in the next release 0.64.
>
>Regards
>Michael
>
>Jere.Kapyaho@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>some time ago Michael implemented the list of constant field values. = 
>>Currently it is an appendix element, as that was what seemed sensible =
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>then. However, that caused a problem in a project where we have a = 
>>structure like this:
>>
>>Book
>>   Part I. Overview
>>   Part II. Reference  <-- the only part created by dbdoclet
>>      Chapter: Package X
>>      Chapter: Package Y
>>      Appendix: Constant field values
>>   An Appendix=20
>>   Another appendix
>>   Index
>>
>>Now what happens is that if you have one or more appendices at the book
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>= level, the labeling starts at 'B' since the constant values appendix 
>>= already takes up the first 'A' label...=20
>>
>>I am thinking maybe the constant field values section would be better 
>>as = a chapter instead of an appendix. What do you think? Could/should 
>>this = be made configurable?
>>
>>--Jere
>>
>>--=20
>>Jere K=E4pyaho (jere U+002E kapyaho U+0040 nokia U+002E com) Senior 
>>Design Engineer, Java Platform Standardization Technology Platforms
>>Nokia Corporation
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Other related posts: