From: Kerry T. <ke...@to...> - 2001-11-22 19:28:59
|
I'd like to step into this conversation and offer a suggestion. Have a look at the Apache-Jakarta Avalon framework source and see how it handles configuration. It has the same functionality that FormProc has now, but instead of passing a JDOM or DOM Element, it passes a Configuration object that resulted from some DOM or JDOM code (I didn't look close enough to know how it implements the configuration file parsing--but I shouldn't have to of course. As a framework user, all I need to be concerned with is the Configuration class API in the Javadocs). The Avalon page is: http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/ The Configuration classes are in org.apache.avalon.framework.configuration: Avalon-4.0/src/java/org/apache/avalon/framework/configuration -Kerry > > The reason I like passing an Element in is because 1.) it allows the > > class to configure itself and 2.) the configuration information can > > take advantage of the nice structures which XML provides. > > I don't understand how you get something more than what Collections provide > in XML, especially since XML is still a moving target in a lot of areas. A > rule can still configure itself if you hardcore model the contract with > either a Collection (easiest) or with a FormProc-specific class. Collections > don't take away Rule's self configuration. Maybe it just seems that way > because you're using DOM, which I still think you should revisit. -- Kerry Todyruik <ke...@to...> |