Hi Les,
I think I do not miss them.I know. whether it names [beans] or [main],
they do the same thing.
but [beans] is developer-oriented, and [main] is end-user-oriented. i.e
[main]
express more information in the context of Shiro as to the end user.
that is why I prefer [main].
On 2010-5-9 10:44, Les Hazlewood 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
