I understand what you're saying, but "beans" doesn't seem very meaningful in the context of Shiro. I think "config" (which would be a bit redundant) or "setup" might make more sense. Or leave it "main" and have a new global options section be called "options" or "settings" or something?
In the end, I don't think it matters much. We'll use whatever you do :) --Erik On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Juan, > > I think you might have missed my point: > > The [main] section today IS the same thing as a Spring-style > configuration - it just uses INI instead of XML. It configures > JavaBeans and builds object graphs and nothing else. That's why I'd > like to change the name to [beans] - so the section name correctly > reflects the current behavior. > > I also wanted to change the name so that if we ever decided to bring > back the [main] section, it could be used for things other than > beans-style configuration. You can't mix them both in the same > section. > > Does that make sense? > > Les > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Juan Chung <[email protected]> wrote: > > [beans] is a more general name, it likes spring-style configuration. so > > it cannot clearly express this section's function in Shiro. > > > > but [main] is a more meaningful name for Shiro, it tells the end-user it > > lies in the Core of Shiro, without it Shiro will not be able to work. > > > > I think [main] is a better name than [beans] in Shiro. > > > > On 2010-5-9 7:27, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> > >> The [main] section now exists for the sole purpose of java-beans-style > >> creation, configuration, and object graph assembly. > >> > >> Because of this, I'm thinking the [main] section should be renamed to > >> [beans] to indicate this. The idea is that it is easily conceivable > >> that we'll need a [main] section at some time for framework-wide > >> directives that might not be able to be represented as a bean/property > >> configuration line. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Les > >> > > > > >
