Sounds good :)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote: > I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary > so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but > that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future > holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main". > > Kalle > > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback! >> >> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to >> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday >> at the latest. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Les >> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >> >
