Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> Remarks inline:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr.
> > > # Configuration for the 'classpath' resource loader
> > >
> > > classpath.resource.loader.class = o.a.v.r.r.l.ClasspathResourceLoader
> > > classpath.resource.loader.description = Classpath Resource Loader
> > > classpath.resource.loader.cache = true
> > >
> >
> > Fundamentally, I think this is a great idea, as it will be easier to
> > human-read the properties file and will help us work on eliminating the
> > 'hail mary' associated with FILE_LOADER_PATH.
> >
> > I do agree 100% with Jon regarding changing the order to be
> >
> > resource.loader.<name>.<property>
> > ...
>
> Me too.
>
> It looks much easier to build generic loading mechanisms for plugable
> stuff by having their properties prefixed with a functional-group-key.
Ok, no problem. This can be adjusted. I just thought the other way
read more naturally. No biggie.
>
>
> > However, I don't think we should add to the misery of the 'repeated
> > identical property' problem. I would like to see, for definition of the
> > individual loaders-by-name
> >
> > resource.loader.1 = file
> > resource.loader.2 = classpath
> >
> > which will
> >
> > ...
>
> Doesn't declaration order work the same way?
Yes, it does. I don't see the need for the number suffixes.
They aren't required.
>
>
> I confess I do not sympathize with the number suffixes - more editing work
> changing the order of a group of properties (ok... some keystrokes more!).
>
> Have fun,
> Paulo Gaspar
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
