how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
in Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
and different kinds of realms.
On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen 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
