The XMLConfigurationFactory class was renamed to DefaultConfigurationBuilder and a (rather simple) ConfigurationBuilder interface was extracted. I think, this is a starting point. Do you think the interface needs more methods? I would like to keep it as lean and generic as possible.
Oliver Oliver Heger wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Hi Oliver, >> >> Oliver Heger wrote on Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:14 PM: >> >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Did you think about an interface for this? Does it make >>> >>> sense to have different implementations of such >>> builders/factories? Initialize from JNDI or DB (... or >>> implement inclusion of other configurations as part of the >>> Configuration core interface)? >>> I have no concrete use case for multiple implementations of such an >>> interface ATM, but this does not mean that it won't make sense. It is >>> certainly possible that somebody might need to create a configuration >>> from other sources or use a completly different form of the definition >>> file. So I am +1 for an interface. >>> >>> I am not sure what you mean by "implement inclusion of other >>> configurations as part of the Configuration core interface". Should >>> every Configuration implementation support the inclusion of >>> other sources? >> >> >> Well, if we go down the road of multiple implementations for a >> ConfigurationBuilder (XML, Properties, DB, JNDI, ...) I have slightly >> a deja vu :) > > Yes, and we could probably continue this game on arbitrary meta levels > introducing configurations for configurations for configurations ... ;-) > >> >> So what about enhancing Configuration for an inclusion mechanism? >> Several impls already have this (XML, Properties), but not in a >> generic way and not with the possibility to include parts of the >> configuration from other sources. I am just thinking out loud here, I >> am not aware of all the possible implications of this idea (and if it >> is really necessary). >> >> - Jörg >> > XMLConfiguration does not support this feature, so it's actually only > PropertiesConfiguration. I think if inclusion became a mandatory > feature, it would complicate configuration implementations > significantly. And exactly for the purpose of combining configuration > sources ConfigurationFactory was created. > > 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]
