On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:13:40PM -0600, Patrick Meade wrote: > > This sounds a bit like a dangerous trap. > > 1. "The config file should be bare, with no comments whatsoever," reads > to me as "brittle parser". Java has nice XML facilities; are we trapped > in an old version of Java that didn't have them? If not, why aren't we > considering an XML based configuration file? > > XML offers distinct advantages, including but not limited to: easier > versioning, validating parser, room for ignorable comments, etc.
Ignorable comments are easy. Keeping our own comments aimed at the user, and the user's comments aimed at himself, separate, and the former up to date, is hard. > > 2. The whole idea of parameter names and types through a method strikes > me as a property map. If what we're aiming for is a property map, this > abstract class seems to be a property map of the heavily over-engineered > variety. Might as well use java.util.Map and save yourself a forest of > classes. Umm, they have callbacks... -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060214/b4a97525/attachment.pgp>
