Good morning all. Time that I jump in again (inline) ;) -----Original Message----- From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > .. >Hehe, do you know how many frameworks you just killed? -> Now all dead as a water (just a joke)...
> 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 -> I am more confused, but... >- 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. -> Ahh, got it (hopefuilly): goes back to my original idea to have multiple configuration in place. I identified them by name (I also had qualifiers in place before, which is much more safe, just the CDI qualifier as of now doesn’t work because of the dependency. And if you add your own meta-annotation in Tamaya you basically duplicate CDI, therefore I was using just names). -> For me it was more a question of havinf more control on the different configuration "modules". E.g. separate the low level domain/container configuration from the app configuration etc.
