Ok, for me category thing was different and closer to "area" but I join you it is for modularity.
Agree with qualifiers, just used a known notion instead of writing 10 lines to finally say "like XXX" ;). And as in CDI it should be able to be dynamic in providers. That said and if we agree on the feature/need then we need to agree on the way to implement it in the other thread. Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-08 10:28 GMT+01:00 Tresch, Anatole <[email protected]>: > 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. > >
