On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Antonio Petrelli <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/11/29 Nathan Bubna <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Antonio Petrelli >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 2010/11/29 Adrian Tarau <[email protected]>: >>>> What I wanted to say is to follow the model and not to include any >>>> dependency. >>> >>> Ok >>> >>>> A minimal functionality should be to set/get primitive types and >>>> work with lists and store everything behind as strings(with "," as >>>> separator >>>> for lists). >>> >>> Not entirely true, only "gets" are needed, since configuration is read-only. >> >> at least it is at the present... > > Sure, but at that point we can use some well-established patterns, > like a "MutableThingy", with setters/adders, and then use a specific > implementation to serialize it.
:) just so long as we aren't ruling it out at the start. > > Antonio > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
