Re: [Proxool-developer] configuration via properties file

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 21:05, Christian Nedregaard wrote:

> 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.

I just tested that. It works. Cool. I think you've told me that before.
Sigh.

> 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. 

Looks like you just talked your way into a job :)

Does it have to be a sub-class? Couldn't you have a JAXPConfigurator
that *uses* the XMLConfigurator? But I don't know much about JAXP. 

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

Why assume when you can test? :)

> 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. 

But small is beautiful, right? Okay, I agree. java-ext will disappear.

> The website only documents 
> the programmatic configuration of the driver.

Yeah, that's just what Bruce said. There are two outstanding tasks that
cover this. Actually, both configurators are untested. We also have a
partially written AvalonConfigurator but I haven't looked at that
recently. Certainly PropertyConfigurator and XMLConfigurator should be
finished before 0.6 (tests and documentation).

Bill