> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anton Tagunov" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hi, gang!
>
> Really hate to delay the final vote on this
> not-so-vital issue. However it is only today
> that my ideas got crystallized on the subject.
<snip>
Hmmm. The more I think about the issue, the more I'm starting to agree with
Anton here. Given the current MutableConfiguration interface to build
something like:
<a>
<b>value1</b>
<b>value2</b>
</a>
you need either a factory or a concrete Configuration implementation. In
all other cases, you don't need one. In other words, to build:
<a>
<b>value1</b>
<c>value2</c>
</a>
you don't need the factory or a concrete Configuration implementation.
That's a bit inconsistent. Rather than further muddle up the
getMutableChild() method, the simplest solution would be to add:
/**
* creates a MutableConfiguration node but does add the node to the
* the configuration tree
*/
public MutableConfiguration createMutableConfiguration(final String name)
throws ConfigurationException;
Leo, thoughts?
Also, the getMutableChild() javadocs state:
* If no child with the given name exists, and <code>autoCreate</code>
* is <code>true</code>, a new mutable child is created and added to
* this configuration before being returned.
This is different from the DefaultConfiguration.getChild() method in that
the DefaultConfiguration does NOT add the child to the tree.
J. Aaron Farr
SONY ELECTRONICS
DDP-CIM
(724) 696-7653
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
