Well, knowing that the results will be even more horrible I am not really motivated to do that. Such a hack would have to check a bunch of cases, e.g. a SubsetConfiguration wrapping a HierarchicalConfiguration, a CompositeConfiguration containing a HierarchicalConfiguration and more.

Another point is that the affected classes are probably not used yet, so we won't really loose anything. And I surely don't want to block the release.

Oliver

Eric Pugh wrote:

Oliver,

While I think it is very kind of you to offer to drop the code for 1.0, and
it may be the right think, what about putting in some sort of temporary hack
for 1.0?  Is there some sort of maybe private/special method like
getHackConfigurationXMLDoucment or maybe some sort of usage of instanceof
that we document as crummy but good enough?  Then, this would give us an
example of what to rearchitect?  We get it to pass the unit tests, cut 1.0,
and then remove the hack so that the unit tests bug us to fix the problem?

Comments?

Eric



-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:39 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developer List
Subject: [configuration]Release 1 and hierarchical configurations


There is still the problem that the ConfigurationXMLDocument class is not fully compatible with SubsetConfiguration. I don't think that a quick and clean solution can be found for this problem soon, so I would like to suggest to drop this class and some of its helpers from the 1.0 release. The following files are affected:

- ConfigurationXMLDocument.java and its test class
TestConfigurationXMLDocument.java.
- The three classes ending on XMLReader. Two of them have also
test classes.
- In the XML howto document the last section starting with "XML
processing" must be removed.
- In the conf directory testConfigurationXMLDocument.xml becomes obsolete.

In another thread it was mentioned that in future the inherent
hierarchical aspects of configuration sources should be more regarded.
So I hope that it will be quite easy to re-introduce these classes later
with a cleaner design.

I was thinking a bit about those hierarchical aspects and how to provide
access to them through the Configuration interface. My idea was to
introduce an interface like ConfigurationNode that describes a node in a
configuration tree. It could look similar to the
HierarchicalProperties.Node class. Then a method getRoot() could be
added to Configuration that returns the root node of the configuration
tree thus providing a tree like view on a configuration. (By the way,
there is already a class HierarchicalConfigurationConverter, which
provides means to convert a flat configuration into a hierarchical one.)

If we had such a tree like view on a configuration, there could be
different "expression language engines" operating on the trees, e.g. for
XPath or other query languages. This would be a powerful way of querying
properties.

Oliver


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




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







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



Reply via email to