> What do you think about making these dependencies optional. > If digester&beanutils are available, vfs will use them and > you could use > the new <globals> sections, else you are stick to the old > parsing with > their limitations (which might get more and more in the future). > In the case of "globals" it could be possible to set them from within > the application as long as init() on the FilesystemManager > wasnt called. > If one use VFS.getInstance() then this might not be possible, > but it is > not much work to instanciate the StandardFilesystemManager > directly instead.
Yeah, that might work. If the current xml parsing code can deal with the default xml file included in the dist that is accessed via the VFS.getInstance() method, then if they need to load their own custom xml file they could load it them selves... Perhaps that's the answer, don't even bother making digester/beanutils an optional dependancy, if the default instance of FileSystemManager is not enough to meet you're needs, then just require the config object to be loaded by the client code, and leave it up to the client code to 'digest' their own custom xml file into the config object. Does that make any sense? I've had 3 espresso's today, so I don't even know if it makes any sense. cheers, Paul Smith --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
