Hi James, On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:31 PM, James Pic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]> > wrote: >> James, >> >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:15 PM, James Pic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Jerome Renard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Context aware configuration files >>>> --------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Creating a website requires to go through 3 different execution contexts: >>>> >>>> 1. dev >>>> 2. staging >>>> 3. production >>>> >>>> Each context has its own specificities. For example the database used for >>>> each >>>> of these 3 contexts is different. So this must be defined for each context >>>> and >>>> used according to the one the web application is actually running in. >>>> >>>> Those 3 contexts should be handled by the Configuration component, during >>>> the >>>> configuration directive merge process. >>>> >>>> Directory structure >>>> ------------------- >>>> >>>> In order to provide a clean directory structure the Configuration component >>>> should be able to read and understand a directory structure compared to >>>> this >>>> one: :: >>>> >>>> /[..]/conf/ >>>> |-- common >>>> | |-- dev >>>> | |-- prod >>>> | `-- staging >>>> `-- apps >>>> |-- app1 >>>> | |-- dev >>>> | |-- prod >>>> | `-- staging >>>> `-- app2 >>>> |-- dev >>>> |-- prod >>>> `-- staging >>>> >>> >>> What if that's *not* what the user wants? Will he still be able to use >>> the merger with simple ezcConfiguration objects? In that case i see no >>> objections ;) >> >> Hmm I did not thought about that problematic, but I think that if we do our >> job >> correctly we should be able to use the merge mechanism on two files. What do >> you think ? >> > > I though maybe we could just allow the user to merge configuration > objects into another configuration object, which can then be used by > your special manager, or normal managers, or normal writers and/or > readers. > > Would that be simple and efficient enought?
I think so, it should no be possible to merge more than two configuration objects. You will get an octopuss otherwise. So merging two configuration objects into a new one sound acceptable to me, and give enough flexibility to do more work after the merge process. -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info
