On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
I agree that a Qi4j node is "weird". The application being the top node makes a lot more sense. However, doesn't Preferences API also support a "user" concept, and different users can have different applications installed and so on? And if so, is this handled automatically, or do we need to do something special around that? >> 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. Well, wouldn't 'schema version' be something that EntityStores must support?? Cheers Niclas _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
