On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> AFACT there's consensus that configuration file compatibility is >> crucial for users of james. > > Well, it was in 2006 when we proposed to branch for release. > I'm not strong at having this as a requirement now. > Just I'd like to not ask users to switch every time, so if we change it > let's do once and let's try to not change again at the following release.
i'm not sure that it would be possible to avoid future changes unless a format is fixed a good example is the torque mailbox. torque is highly configurable. to allow a user to completely tune a torque configuration through the James configuration file means adding a lot more properties that we would then need to commit to maintaining going forward. but fixing a format would mean that james would ship with many functions pre-configured with limited flexibility. more complex extensions could be configured at the assembly level but not as part of the main configuration. >> 1 do we have a schema for the configuration file? > > No. would it be a good idea to create one? >> 2 moving forward, would it be convenient to use an object model to >> decouple configuration from avalon? > > Maybe our only alternative... object models can sometimes be useful tools for documenting the configuration as well - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
