On Monday 27 October 2003 03:20, Leo Simons wrote:
> >> 1. I think KernelParameters should go into a seperate package that
> >> other packages (such as kernel) depend on. This will make it easier
> >> when creating the bootstrap process.
>
> disagree! Recognize the tight coupling between config and component and
> reflect it :D
Hmmmm.... Now you got me thinking.
Perhaps this has been brought up before... Maybe it belong more on Pico/Nano
mailing lists...
public class MyComponent
{
public MyComponent( MyComponentConfig config )
{
// handle config
}
}
public interface MyComponentConfig
{
String getName();
int getSomeValue();
AnotherBean getSomeBean();
}
<configuration type="org.hedhman.niclas.MyComponentConfig">
<Name>MyFabulousComponent</Name>
<SomeValue>15</SomeValue>
<AnotherBean />
</configuration>
It is pretty easy to parse the XML and create a dynamic proxy for the Config
object.
And could also have some nice construction semantics for JavaBeans, such as
<AnotherBean type="org.hedhman.niclas.AnotherBean" >
<Level>4</Level>
<TimeSpan>7200</TimeSpan>
</AnotherBean>
Although this is slightly different issue.
I feel really good about coded Config objects instead of the runtime
interpreted ones.
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
