Re: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespaces

[Emmanuel Bourg]

I don't use ConfigurationFactory but it's definitely useful as a central place to configure an application. I think we could even push the concept a bit further, after all, the configuration descriptor read by ConfigurationFactory *is* a configuration, it's even a file based configuration that should be automatically reloaded when the file is changed. So, what about the following ideas:

- remove the namespace handling

- make ConfigurationFactory implement FileConfiguration (it already has the set/getBasePath() and setGetFileName() methods, load() is easy to implement with the current code and there is no need to implement save() since it's read only)

- add a <composite> element to load another composite configuration descriptor

- not sure about this one, but ConfigurationFactory and CompositeConfiguration could maybe be merged...

Emmanuel Bourg

Eric Pugh wrote:

Simplicity I think is always a good idea..  I don't use it..  I will say, I
am not too keen on the ConfiguraitonFactory anyway...  I think I made a hash
of things when first writing it...

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:52 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespaces

While reviewing ConfigurationFactory I stumbled on the namespace logic,
may I ask who is actually using it ? It looks like an unnecessary
complexity to me, imho it's easier to have several configuration
descriptors rather than a single namespaced descriptor.

What do you think ?

Emmanuel Bourg

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature