On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Peter Ledbrook <[email protected]> wrote: >> I like it! Does anyone have any thoughts about using (or not using) Groovy? > > That depends. Do you have a link to a previous discussion about this? > Or the thread title, so I can search for it? I'm just wondering what > type of things the configuration API is expected to do. I'm still > unsure whether it has anything to do with wiring different beans > together, or whether it's simply configuration of already wired beans. > Or something else entirely.
I'm basically looking for 2 things with an overhaul 1) Agree upon a default text-based configuration format conducive to defining object graphs 2) Refactor the existing Configuration codebase to favor OO composition instead of inheritance to allow other (non default) configuration mechanisms easier to write and support. I don't have any links, but here are the interfaces to which I was referring: org.apache.shiro.config.Configuration org.apache.shiro.web.config.WebConfiguration The first interface is empty and is a sub-interface of org.apache.shiro.mgt.SecurityManagerFactory which just has one method: getSecurityManager() : SecurityManager The current default mechanism is to use the .ini format to build an object graph. My suggestion with Groovy was to use the Groovy syntax as the text-based format itself (instead of .ini) as the default, since it is much better suited for building an object graph. Any other implementation could be plugged in do whatever it wanted - e.g. to pull the already-built SecurityManager from a Spring ApplicationContext, or to look it up from JNDI, or whatever... Does that help clarify things? Les
