commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] HierarchicalConfiguration in configuration2
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:04:54 GMT
Ralph Goers schrieb:
> I've noticed that HierarchicalConfiguration isn't part of the 
> inheritance for the various hierarchical implementations. This seems 
> rather odd. What base class are applications migrating to configuration2 
> supposed to convert all their references to?  In fact, I'm wondering if 
> HierarchicalConfiguration shouldn't just be converted to an interface 
> that AbstractHierarchicalConfiguration implements.
Well, first of all, this branch is really experimental and far from 
being stable.

For configuration2 the intension was to make all configurations 
hierarchical. Because of this there does not seem to be much point in 
calling a configuration class "HierarchicalConfiguration".

The HierarchicalConfiguration class exists there for legacy reasons only 
because some classes still rely on it. When refactoring is complete it 
can be removed. With AbstractHierarchicalConfiguration there is a new 
implementation based on the new NodeHandler approach. (Later this class 
will probably merge with AbstractConfiguration.) The new counterpart to 
HierarchicalConfiguration is called InMemoryConfiguration.

But, as you certainly see, there is still a lot of work to do, and also 
some fundamental decisions are pending. For instance, what should be the 
exact content of the Configuration interface? I am still on the opinion 
that it would be a good idea to have a low-level ConfigurationSource 
interface covering only the basics of property access and a high-level 
Configuration interface providing a rich API with many convenience methods.


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

View raw message