the new configuration stuff looks good :-) On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder if it would make sense to move the ConfigurationWrapping
is ConfigurationWrapper now called JamesConfiguration ? > to an extra service (because we could reuse it for other components too) > and only inject an "Subnodeconfiguration" into the handler. This > should work with using configurationAt() method of commons > configuration. IMHO a handler should only need the part of the > configuration which belongs to it... yes but not yet ;-) IMHO an incremental approach would be the right way to go about it. the next step would be pushing the changes up to AbstractJamesService level and converting POP3 etc. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
