I'm not agree about it !!. Maybe the only one missing thing is a really good
devel-guide to explain the fastest and simplest way to configure properly
the configuraton file.:jumping:
Alternatively we can give them, as you say , the possibility to choice..
Pino Contartese wrote:
>
>
>
> rlogiacco wrote:
>>
>> I started to think the .hcf extension modification was not a so brillant
>> idea for al least two reasons:
>>
>> 1. it confuses developers which tendo to have difficulties to understand
>> it's just an hibernate.cfg.xml file with a differente name;
>> 2. it confuses programs which need to be configured properly to
>> understand it's an XML file.
>>
>> May be it would be better to switch back to the standard naming to solve
>> this problems, but we still need to allow custom additional files to be
>> deployed in a shared area. May be a hibernate[-modulename].cfg.xml schema
>> is what we need.
>>
>> The impact on the file naming is strong as will be the impact on users
>> knowledge: those who already understood the .hcf extension will be
>> confused, but the new ones should find this simpler. We can also allow
>> for both naming for a while...
>>
>> Waiting for comments and ideas.
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Configuration-file-extension-misleading-tf3192869s17546.html#a13442400
Sent from the SmartWeb Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
