Hi Robert, comments inline...
2009/9/15 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > 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 ? Yes thats it, not sure if the naming is the best ;) > >> 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 +1 makes sense.. Bye, Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
