commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Pugh" <ep...@upstate.com>
Subject RE: [configuration]HierarchicalConfiguration
Date Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:14:13 GMT
Oliver, I missed your earlier post about HierarchicalConfiguration (can't
find it in my email...) but what you are saying is that the
addProperty method causes issues because they go to the Container object.
Then if we move the container stuff to BaseConfiguration then you could do
your
own stuff in addProperty?

If we move the container stuff to BaseConfiguration then is there any reason
to keep AbstractConfiguration?  I thought the idea was that since
BaseConfiguration was hard to extend from, by adding AbstractConfiguration
you could extend from that and have most of the methods done, just needed to
reimplement the addPropertyDirect/getPropertyDirect methods?  Or would we
also move the addProperty/getProperty to BaseConfiguration as well?

ERic



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Heger [mailto:Oliver.Heger@t-online.de]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:05 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developer List
> Subject: [configuration]HierarchicalConfiguration
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am working on a special Configuration implementation called
> HierarchicalConfiguration that avoids the problems I have
> outlined in my
> last posting (messing up structure of hierarchical XML
> documents). Therefor
> I use my own scheme of storing data.
>
> My class extends AbstractConfiguration. Implementing the
> abstract methods I
> found that this base class already makes certain assumptions
> about how data
> is stored, which makes implementation of some methods
> difficult. Especially
> addProperty() is problematic because it simply adds new
> properties to a
> Container object and wants to store this directly. This won't
> work with my
> implementation.
>
> In my opinion a better behavior for addProperty() would be to process
> collections and strings (as it does now) and then pass the results to
> addPropertyDirect(). The Container stuff could then be located in the
> addPropertyDirect() implementation of BaseConfiguration. What
> do you think
> about this?
>
> Regards
> Oli
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message