Re: [Lius-devp] Re: Apache Commons Configuration
Brought to you by:
benjellr
From: Jens F. <jf...@te...> - 2005-06-22 18:38:31
|
Hi Rida.. > The don't like to match the Idea about having XML without attribute > because the config file become more difficult to use. I don't like the idea either but it seems to me like a price we could pay i= f=20 we decide to use ACC. > Olso I can=92t really see the real problem with LiusConfig, why you don= =92t > like it ? What do you mean? I thought we agreed on leaving knowledge about component= =20 configuration to the component and not LiusConfig (which will only serve as= a=20 common entry-point into configuration issues). > I didn=92t have yet the opportunity to work with ACC, Olso What J.J Larrea > suggested is very good because we can define some classes the represent > the config and then ask digester to populate them. This can olso be a > good approach because if we decide to use other API to parse the config > we can repopulate the config classes using the new API, Withowt having > any impact into the core level. I agree that the digester concept is nice but as I wrote earlier: I current= ly=20 don't see a way of passing a reference to previously unhandled (i.e. unknow= n)=20 XML elements to the respective components (e.g. Indexer classes). Again, we= =20 would end up with declaring all possible configuration elements and=20 structures in LiusConfig. > And finally if we implement a new config we don't have to spend a lot of > time on it because we have a lot of thinks to do, like implementing the > new indexing framework that Jens has suggested. indeed, but we should focus on the configuration issues first - otherwise w= e'd=20 have to modify even the new indexing framework again (which I'd like to tou= ch=20 exactly once for now only :-) cu, jens =2D-=20 =2EO. Jens Fendler =2E.O jf...@te... OOO http://www.teamskill.de |