On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Norbert Kiesel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Norbert, > > > > due to lack of time, I recently only focused on Configuration 2.0 and > > intended to let the 1.x series slowly die. Therefore, my priority is to > > get 2.0 ready and push the release out. If I understand correctly, the > > implementation in 2.0 satisfies your needs, except that some generic > > types still have to be adapted (passing a Map<String, ?> to the > > constructor rather than a Map<String, Object>). Is this correct? > > Yes, 2.0 satifies our need (even the current version, though I agree with > your > suggested type change). > > > > > Patches for a 1.11 fix release are of course welcome, but I cannot > > promise that I will be able to actually do a 1.11 release in the near > > future. If somebody else steps up and volunteers to do this, this would > > of course be another story. > > Understood. Really only trying to help here, not to produce more work for > you > or the community. We will simply stick with 1.9 until 2.0 is out. > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > The way out for a potential 1.11 would be to override more of the the > > > AbstractMap API to make that a mutable map backed by the Properties > object. Do > > > you want me to provide a patch along these lines? > > > > This approach would probably work, but it seems like unnecessary > > complexity. Accessing the passed in Properties object directly - as done > > in 2.0 - is more straight-forward, isn't it? > > This would break backwards compatibility: 1.x promises to actively weed out > entries with non-string keys from the passed Properties object. So anyone > depending on this would be in for a surprise. 2.0 instead warns callers > that they have to > ensure that they don't pass such entries. This makes life simpler for the > implementation > and is IMHO very good for an API-breaking 2.x but not for 1.x. > > I don't want to waste anyone's time here, so unless you tell me that you > want to see the > revised patch or otherwise actively engage, I will shut up on this topic. > Was a pleasure to > talk to you and thanks for your community work! > Thank you for your understanding and help. We are all volunteers short on time. You might want to submit a 1.x patch in case an RM decides to push out a release. That would grease the wheels a bit. Just in case... Gary > > </nk> > > Confidentiality Notice:This email and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to > whom they are addressed. This message contains confidential information and > is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named > addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this > e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not > the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, > distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this > information is strictly prohibited > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
