2015-01-08 9:49 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > Romain that makes no sense at all. >
Hehe, do you know how many frameworks you just killed? > As example for Logging: you also only have one factory, right? > But still each log level and package could use it's own logging channels. The > ones could go to one file, the others to another, the third into the > database. Not a problem at all. > Not sure what you are saying here. > > But by having a single factory *YOU* have FULL control over your whole > application! It's NOT (only) the application which decides what to log and > where to. It's YOU as dev or ops guy or lady! > Sure and there is nothing against in what I say. What I just want is to be abe to get different configuration instance to keep it simple. I proposed some impl solution - I admit it was a bit caricatural cause I wanted it to be understood - but if you like CDI add a qualifier to providers/sources then you are done. Idea is just to be able to get a Configuration with a subset of the implementation of the SPI. Honestly I dont see how we can propose a solution without it when I look back and see all kind of config needing it. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > >> On Thursday, 8 January 2015, 9:45, Romain Manni-Bucau >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If I want N by app then I'll switch the ConfigurationContext to be >> "prototype" - that's what I meant. Then for manual configs you >> need to >> configure the context to load only needed sources/filters so you'll >> configure the context. >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2015-01-08 9:39 GMT+01:00 Anatole Tresch <[email protected]>: >>> You dont configure the ConfigurationContext. You configure PropertySources, >>> propertySourceProviders and PropertyFilters. The configuration context is >>> nothing else than the loaded set of artifacts as were accessible during >>> config creation. The configuration impl manages these contexts. By default >>> there is 1 context per config. In a container I would expect one per app >>> minimally... >>> Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 8. Jan. >> 2015 >>> um 08:59: >>> >>>> ;-) >>>> >>>> But still my initial question is open: How to do I get a Configuration >>>> if I have a configured ConfigurationContext? >>>> >>>> Am 08.01.15 um 08:54 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau: >>>> > :) that's what we all say and we left the original thread >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Romain Manni-Bucau >>>> > @rmannibucau >>>> > http://www.tomitribe.com >>>> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >>>> > https://github.com/rmannibucau >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2015-01-08 8:50 GMT+01:00 Oliver B. Fischer >> <[email protected]>: >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I agree with you Anatole. There is no standard way there to >> place your >>>> >> configuration data. And we must not restrict the user in that >> ways that >>>> we >>>> >> decide how to solve this problem. >>>> >> >>>> >> From my point of view we must provide a framework which helps >> the user >>>> to >>>> >> solve his problem. And not the other way around. >>>> >> >>>> >> Olive >>>> >> >>>> >> Am 07.01.15 um 11:14 schrieb Anatole Tresch: >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> N Oliver B. Fischer >>>> >> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany >>>> >> P +49 30 44793251 >>>> >> M +49 178 7903538 >>>> >> E [email protected] >>>> >> S oliver.b.fischer >>>> >> J [email protected] >>>> >> X http://xing.to/obf >>>> >> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> N Oliver B. Fischer >>>> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany >>>> P +49 30 44793251 >>>> M +49 178 7903538 >>>> E [email protected] >>>> S oliver.b.fischer >>>> J [email protected] >>>> X http://xing.to/obf >>>> >>>> >>
