commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <>
Subject Re: [configuration] New hierarchical configurations
Date Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:34:17 GMT
Emmanuel Bourg schrieb:
> +1 for removing the old configurations, otherwise that would be 
> confusing for the users.
> Regarding the package structure do you have other plans besides the 
> 'flat' package ?

I would like to keep main package pretty small, so that it only contains 
the basic interfaces and abstract base classes.

Sub packages would group classes with similar functionality. The plist 
and web packages are good examples for that, but I am not sure how to 
handle specific implementations consisting of only one or two classes 
(e.g. INIConfiguration). Putting them in their own package probably does 
not make too much sense.


> Emmanuel Bourg
>> Agreed. After refactoring of the hierarchical file-based configurations
>> is complete, it shows that the new configurations are indeed a full
>> replacement for the old ones: all unit tests are still running.
>> About the naming: If all our configurations are hierarchical (at least
>> this is the plan currently), there does not seem to be much point in
>> calling a concrete implementation "HierarchicalConfiguration". Therefore
>> I used the name "InMemoryConfiguration" for the replacement (because the
>> whole data is stored as ConfigurationNode objects in memory).
>> In the first discussions about the new configuration2 branch somebody
>> suggested using a different package structure, which is more focused on
>> modularity, i.e. there should be packages containing configuration
>> implementations with a specific functionality. I would like to follow
>> this suggestion. Any objections or further comments?
>> Oliver
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message