Mailing-List: contact dev-help@beehive.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of stocco@bea.com designates
 63.96.162.5 as permitted sender)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: netui and the xmlbean config file
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:39:22 -0600
Message-ID: <A33EF4FD8AF1EC48A62CD576DFB75AD504300797@usboex01.amer.bea.com>
Thread-Topic: netui and the xmlbean config file
Thread-Index: AcWsFMNRH3DBQOdWQlSpaZ+qJRtKyQAmtfBQ
From: "Steven Tocco" <stocco@bea.com>
To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>

+1, seems like the right long term move and the right time to do it
before v1.0 is cut.

Thanks
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Feit [mailto:richfeit@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:09 PM
To: Beehive Developers
Subject: Re: netui and the xmlbean config file

+1 -- I agree w/ this (good to avoid going 1.0 with something we know=20
we'll deprecate), and it doesn't seem too risky (especially if you use a

tool to create the delegation :) ).

Rich

Eddie O'Neil wrote:

>All--
>
>  One other thing I noticed while going through the Javadoc for NetUI
>is that we're exposing the NetUI config file
>(beehive-netui-config.xml) in a public API as an XMLBean.  In this
>case, this seems like a bad practice as it puts the NetuiConfig type
>into the public API.
>
>  The problem is that if if someone wanted to configure the runtime
>via Spring / HiveMind / etc, this isn't easy to do since the current
>implementation of configuration is exposed on the
>org.apache.beehive.netui.util.config.ConfigUtil class.
>
>  I'm going to take a crack at switching this over to a JavaBean API
>for 1.0 -- since we're going to be stuck with this API for a while, it
>seems like a good thing to enable.  :)
>
>  This would basically look like a complex JavaBean that has a similar
>nesting structure to the XML document implemented in abstract base
>classes.  Then, an XMLBean implementation to those classes will
>delegate to the XMLBeans that parse the beehive-netui-config.xml file.
> Clients of ConfigUtil would then jus talk to the JavaBeans direclty.
>
>  Other thoughts / comments?  Do others thing that this is 1.0 worthy?
>
>Eddie
>
> =20
>