On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 24, 2005, at 7:00 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
Excellent point. I think that shipping an experimental
configuration system as the default is bit risky. As a long term
idea, I think that a binary configuration system would be a good
option, but I think in the near term we should focus providing a
tried an true text based configuration system as the default.
Now the big question: Is can we deliver a text based configuration
system before 1.0 or should we expand on Aaron's configuration
overrider to fill in the gap?
umm, it seems to me that you are twisting reality here a little
bit :-) I think using anything other than the existing known-to-
work-although-sometimes-a-pain immutable binary configuration
system we have been using for a year+ is way too risky for 1.0.
Getting the very limited config db idea to work for a limited set
of easy to change attributes should eliminate much of the
unbearable pain of e.g. not being able to change the ports without
excessive risk, I hope. If not, I'm willing to live with not being
able to change ports.
A text based configuration system is not possible IMO with the
current state of gbeans, where we have lots of complex attributes
that really need to be serialized. If we had nested gbeans or
their equivalent a couple months ago I would be much happier with
the idea of text based gbeandata serialization in the configurations.
I know a lot of this serialized configuration topic gets to changing
ports, but I want to go on record one more time and say that binary
configurations will not work for upgrades. It won't be till we
remove all details from our configurations that expose the inner-most
structure of classes that we will have the possibility to upgrade
without a complete redeploy.
As I've had this perspective for quite some time, I fault myself for
not breaking from mainline backing my opinion with code.
-David
