Tim O'Brien wrote:
Anyone have any objections to bringing PropertiesConfiguration into sync with the two XMLConfiguration implementations? In other words, PropertiesConfiguration should have a constructor which takes a File and a constructor which takes a String resource name.
Sure, that sounds reasonable.
Alternatively, why not have all Configuration implementations just take a Reader?
And drop the File/filename constructors ? How would we save the configurations, with a save(Writer) method ?
Emmanuel Bourg
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
