Michael Hunger wrote: > Great, > perhaps a qi4j root node? I considered a qi4j root node, but opted against it. It will bring in implementation details into the configuration which seems unnecessary. I can't look at other apps and see how they have been implemented so why should I see that an app is done using Qi4j? Any reason?
> Regarding versions: I don't think its necessary as most applications can and > will reuse the configuration of their > predecessors. Fair enough! We can always add startup migration services if necessary. > I'd go for the more complex mapping of ValueComposites. Yeah, that sounds more useful. Wanna give it a go? :-) /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
