avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert McIntosh <rob...@bull-enterprises.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] fulcrum deprecation
Date Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:01:40 GMT
I may not be a commiter to Avalon, but for the .02 of a user (and a 
happy one at that), I can say that the commons configuration, well, 
doens't come close to doing what Avalon's does. For apparently obvious 
reasons, the commons configuration is geared towards property files and 
therefore doesn't really provide any constructs for the tree nature of 
XML files, namely children nodes/configs and attributes. I believe that 
Avalon's configuration does this beautifully without constraining me in 
how I design my configuration. The configuration API was actually one of 
the reasons I jumped onto Avalon in the first place (the second being 
the container architecture/concepts).

I'm sure that the commons configuration meets the needs of its intended 
audience, but I think it needs a lot of work before it can meet the 
needs of Avalon's audience. I agree with Berin that maybe commons could 
or should adopt Avalon's configuration API.

A satisfied user,

>>Stephen Haberman wrote:
>>>On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:18:21PM -0800, Daniel Rall wrote:
>>>>I would very much like to see Avalon adopt the Commons Configuration
>>>>interface, and am willing to write code to make that happen.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message