Re: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespacesI agree with everything excelpt the last one, merging the two.. CompositeConfiguration is a very simple holder for configurations. You can easily use it programatically for example.
However, ConfigurationFactory brings a lot more with it.. Including with what you propose the ability to reload itself.. Something to think about is that if ConfigurationFactory is going to start reloading itself, then maybe we need to think about how we are going to bolt in out event handling stuff. On a related note, now that Vector has been removed, and you have tossed in a bunch of small features and stuff that had been sitting around. Should we think about a 1.1 release? I know, it seems soon, but... Release early/release often... Eric -----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:45 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespaces 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
