Sorry,

NONE +THREE is a bad example as just THREE is needed ;-)

Jean-Louis


Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> When the list is large it can be interesting to have things like
> ALL -ONE -TWO or NONE +THREE
> 
> Don't know if it makes sense here but it's a very common notation.
> 
> Jean-Louis
> 
> 
> 
> David Blevins wrote:
>> 
>> While fixing some of the code around us being way too aggressive in  
>> finding ClientModules (note that latest report with the user having  
>> some 30+ in his classpath due to jboss libraries that specify Main- 
>> Class in the MANIFEST.MF), I ended up wanting to switch the  
>> openejb.deployments.classpath.require.descriptor property from a  
>> boolean type to one that accepted an enum.
>> 
>> This posed some complications from a compatibility perspective.   
>> Adding a new property was tempting, but that just raises the question  
>> of how it relates to the old property.
>> 
>> Ended up making these improvements to our Options support that returns  
>> a java.util.Set of Enum items.  Should be very useful:
>> 
>>   * ENUM SETS:
>>   *
>>   * Properties that accept a Set of enum values automatically accept  
>> ALL and NONE in
>>   * addition to the explicitly created enum items.
>>   *
>>   * Using ALL. This allows users to have an easy way to imply "all"  
>> without having to
>>   * hardcode an the entire list of enum items and protects against the  
>> case where that
>>   * list may grow in the future.
>>   *
>>   * Using NONE.  This allows users an alternative to using an empty  
>> string when explicitly
>>   * specifying that none of the options should be used.
>>   *
>>   * In the internal code, this allows us to have these concepts in all  
>> enum options
>>   * without us having to add NONE or ALL enum items explicitly which  
>> leads to strange code.
>>   *
>>   * Additionally TRUE is an alias for ALL and FALSE an alias for  
>> NONE.  This allows options
>>   * that used to support only true/false values to be further defined  
>> in the future without
>>   * breaking compatibility.
>> 
>> Also added a ton more test for this that even include verifying the  
>> log output.  Didn't find any issues in the code regarding the logic,  
>> but did fine a few issues in the logging which are now fixed.
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/o.a.o.util.Options-improvements%3A-NONE-and-ALL-tp24912653p24912793.html
Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to