Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>>This is already working? Ups, didn't now that...
>>>
>>No, it is the responsibility of the Container to require or allow those semantics.
>>The reason being is that not all container allow or should allow configuration
>>including.
>>
>
> Makes sense
>
>
>>>At least that would be nicer than the XML entity approach.
>>>
>>True.
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Yes, including was it in the first place... but I now I really like
>>>this approach... I'm sure one can say it comes from the FS at the moment
>>>;) but I'm sure there some nice use-cases for this...
>>>
>>>But what I like most about it... it's so straight forward when
>>>programming... The CM does it, the RM does it, so I thought this might
>>>also be possible with the Configuration (altough it's not a Manager) but I
>>>don't think this pattern has to be tied only to Managers.
>>>
>>>Maybe it makes even more to just add another constructor to the
>>>AbstractConfiguration class and implement in there. "Cascading" _might_
>>>not exactly the right name... don't know
>>>
>>
>>I think the AbstractConfiguration with the parent constructor would be enough.
>>I think we may be doing it with Parameters as well.
>>
>
> Do you want me to prepare a patch for the AbstractConfiguration?
Sure--but keep in mind that you may have to do some stuff to DefaultConfiguration
as well :)
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
