Hi, Ben Alex wrote: > It would be great if Jukka could give us some ideas on what the > configuration refactoring is moving towards. We'd be hoping it includes > the elimination of large, application-wide configuration objects; the > use of getters/setters on classes to set configuration properties and > collaborating objects; and the use of finer-grained interfaces so that > smaller pieces of Jackrabbit can be customised, enhanced or replaced (eg > like the above security example). As I said earlier, we're happy to help > out with any configuration refactoring (if you would like us to).
I have already converted the Config classes to a more IoC-friendly format (using constructor dependencies). I have also isolated most of the XML handling code to the ConfigurationParser class. I have not attempted to change the fundamental configuration structure of Jackrabbit. My goal has been to clarify the config package and provide a clear starting point for future work. I'll send a more detailed change summary tomorrow and discuss more about the potential future work related to Jackrabbit configuration. I've already reached the point where additional config changes would necessarily touch code also outside the config package, so before venturing further it would be good to have an open design discussion on the matter. BR, Jukka Zitting
