Re: [Proxool-developer] configuration via properties file

[Christian N. <chr...@em...>]

> Bill Horsman wrote:
> > Does anyone have any thoughts of whether we should include the
> > XMLConfigurator in the binary distribution? Doing so would mean a
> > dependence for everyone on JAXP and a compliant parser. 

Just including the XMLConfigurator (and all other configurators that depend on external libraries) in the binary dist would not create a dependency. The dependency will only occur when somebody tries to *use* these Configurators. If somebody is content using the PropertyConfigurator they can use Proxool without including any external libraries.

By the way: The XMLConfigurator does not have any dependency on JAXP, only SAX. I guess we ought to write a JAXP subclass that takes care of parser instaniation etc and offers a couple of "configure" methods like PropertyConfigurator. 

> Bas wrote:
> I'd like to propose the distribution of 2 jars: one that contains the 
> basic proxool driver and another that contains your convenience classes. 
> That'll make things conveniently arranged.

Unless my previous assumtion was wrong I'd like to propose the oposite: 

Move all the "ext" classes into Proxool proper, and remove the "ext" source tree. Multiple distributions for a project as small as Proxool seems uneccecary complex. As stated above this will not create any problems for users of the binary dist that don't want to use the configurators with external dependencies. Of cource these dependecies needs to be properly documented so that users would know what libs to include if they want to use those configurators. It seems like we need to upgrade the doc on configuration anyway. The website only documents the programmatic configuration of the driver.

CHR




-- 
_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

One click access to the Top Search Engines
http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom