+1
On 8/29/05, Steven Tocco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1, seems like the right long term move and the right time to do it > before v1.0 is cut. > > Thanks > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rich Feit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:09 PM > To: Beehive Developers > Subject: Re: netui and the xmlbean config file > > +1 -- I agree w/ this (good to avoid going 1.0 with something we know > we'll deprecate), and it doesn't seem too risky (especially if you use a > > tool to create the delegation :) ). > > Rich > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > >All-- > > > > One other thing I noticed while going through the Javadoc for NetUI > >is that we're exposing the NetUI config file > >(beehive-netui-config.xml) in a public API as an XMLBean. In this > >case, this seems like a bad practice as it puts the NetuiConfig type > >into the public API. > > > > The problem is that if if someone wanted to configure the runtime > >via Spring / HiveMind / etc, this isn't easy to do since the current > >implementation of configuration is exposed on the > >org.apache.beehive.netui.util.config.ConfigUtil class. > > > > I'm going to take a crack at switching this over to a JavaBean API > >for 1.0 -- since we're going to be stuck with this API for a while, it > >seems like a good thing to enable. :) > > > > This would basically look like a complex JavaBean that has a similar > >nesting structure to the XML document implemented in abstract base > >classes. Then, an XMLBean implementation to those classes will > >delegate to the XMLBeans that parse the beehive-netui-config.xml file. > > Clients of ConfigUtil would then jus talk to the JavaBeans direclty. > > > > Other thoughts / comments? Do others thing that this is 1.0 worthy? > > > >Eddie > > > > > > > >
