PS: it's a very good start, so txs Oliver. Please keep the use cases rolling. I'm not saying those use cases are not good. They _sometimes_ make perfect sense.
I'd just prefer that we only focus on really widely needed features and move stuff we can easily add on top of that to another layer. I'm not for removing those features, what I have in mind is splitting into a 'jsr-core-api' and a tamaya-api on top of that. That could work out. LieGrue, strub > On Monday, 18 July 2016, 18:38, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > type-safety can be done in as little as 2 interfaces. Check the sample I > > gave > with ConfigValue + Converter. > We are then up to 7 classes. Still way below the current Tamaya API > > I'm not afraid of features per se. But I'm afraid of features which > heavily add weight, are only of limited use and can easily be done on the > customer side. > > Also: the more features we add to the API, the less likely it is to get a JSR > done. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > >> On Monday, 18 July 2016, 18:13, Oliver B. Fischer > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I would like to target A2 and B2. Why B2: Of course I don't like > to stay >> in the 90ties and there is are a lot of modern frameworks who provide >> such features as type safety and so on. Ok, I could do all this modern >> stuff by hand - but I always would like to have a usefull framework. >> >> In my daily work I need collections and I need type safety. Why are we >> so afraid of such usefull features? >> >>
