On Nov 20, 2009, at 18:36 , Cyril Concolato wrote: > Robin Berjon a écrit : >> I actually like it, it's one less thing that we need to specify (I was >> unfavourable to making the configuration requires in the first place). I've >> implemented it and it works nicely. Yes, it's a bit of a performance hit but >> it's not so bad and you can cache it easily. > I agree that it's not a big burden. I think it's more a question of taste. I > would prefer putting more in the configuration than less.
Then our tastes differ :) I really think that Convention Over Configuration is the way to go here (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration). In general, the more defaults there are, the less cases of outright failure there are, the better. Otherwise it just becomes Java programming all over again, and no one wants that, right? > What do you mean by "you can cache it easily" ? You read the widget's configuration once, then when you read the same widget again you've cached the configuration and don't need to find the start file again (unless the locale has changed). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
