Mark Brouwer wrote: > Greg Trasuk wrote: > >> Is there anything preventing someone from writing another implementation >> of Configuration as an alternative to ConfigurationFile? I though Van > > FYI I haven't found any problems in configuring any classes that take a > Configuration object based on configuration files that are XML based > combined with programmatic assembling at runtime (vague enough?). > > I've always been very pleased with the current separation, I can imagine > though that for many people the indirection level is confusing or > awkward or whatever. However nothing prevents people for creating > Configuration factories for any of the JTSK classes that expose the > implementation details in a different way such as with setters. > > The great thing is that this can be done in way that doesn't affect the > standardized/core/platform/kernel/<fill in your metaphor> classes. I can > see there are people who want to go wild with this and is Apache River a > good place for this? I think so, but IMHO not as part of the same > subproject as the <fill in your metaphor> classes.
Yeah, River could be a place for this but better scale and freedom might be achieved by following a more Linux type model where people maintain these projects whereever and when they get critical mass/popular acclaim or whatever get merged or moved or whatever. Dan.
