Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that name would be later.
Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable! Best, Les On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >
