I may not be a commiter to Avalon, but for the .02 of a user (and a
happy one at that), I can say that the commons configuration, well,
doens't come close to doing what Avalon's does. For apparently obvious
reasons, the commons configuration is geared towards property files and
therefore doesn't really provide any constructs for the tree nature of
XML files, namely children nodes/configs and attributes. I believe that
Avalon's configuration does this beautifully without constraining me in
how I design my configuration. The configuration API was actually one of
the reasons I jumped onto Avalon in the first place (the second being
the container architecture/concepts).
I'm sure that the commons configuration meets the needs of its intended
audience, but I think it needs a lot of work before it can meet the
needs of Avalon's audience. I agree with Berin that maybe commons could
or should adopt Avalon's configuration API.
A satisfied user,
Robert
Stephen Haberman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:18:21PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
I would very much like to see Avalon adopt the Commons Configuration
interface, and am willing to write code to make that happen.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
