commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schai...@Elsag-Solutions.com>
Subject RE: [configuration] Roadmap
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:01:06 GMT
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Thursday, March 04, 2004 5:40 PM:

> Jörg Schaible wrote:
> 
>> remove here also the dependency to StringUtils (just used to handle
>> an empty String). Basic idea - if I just use properties and DOM, I
>> would like to have the least number of dependencies as possible. If
>> other lang functionality would have been used here, no problem - but
>> *not* for an empty String test ...
> 
> [configuration] also use the StringEscapeUtils and BooleanUtils from
> [lang], as well as the NestableException for the
> ConfigurationException.
> I don't think it's wise to remove this dependency, [lang] is so
> ubiquitous it shouldn't be an issue to keep it.

Don't get me wrong. I would not drop the dependency to lang for anything ... I meant just
for the classes like PropertyConfiguration and (Hierarchical)DOMConfiguration, that are based
on functionality in the JDK (1.4). But you're right, I did not recognize the dependency for
ConfigurationException, so this is a non-issue.

>>> - DOM4J dependency removal
>> 
>> Working on this. I understand correctly, that this just means support
>> of DOM, but no deprecation of JDOM ?
> 
> Well if there is no benefit in using DOM4J instead of
> javax.xml I would
> drop the dependency. I'm not familiar with DOM4J so forgive me if I'm
> saying an heresy ;) 

Why drop? I haven't done much with Dom4J either, but Dom4J has a much cleaner document model.
Remember it's only J2sdk 1.4.x that has XML support out-of-the-box, but older JDK's or J2ME
(at least I think so) do not have it. So Dom4J is possibly more lightweight (in this case
even an additional a PullParser support would make sense).

>>> - system properties interpolation (Bug 26066)
>> 
>> Can we introcuce a basic support for 1.0 (I will need this anyway)? I
>> am thinking of a SystemPropertyConfiguration as singleton. Does that
>> make sense? You could use it in a composition. Or do you think of an
>> implicit support in interpolateHelper ?
> 
> A system configuration can already be obtained through the
> ConfigurationConverter class with:
> 
> ConfigurationConverter.getConfiguration(System.getProperties())

Did not recognize this. But I will use it immediatly ... :)

> The only issue is that it provides a copy of the Properties, I'm
> preparing a patch that returns a wrapper instead.

But what is with subsets ? I haven't look into the model too deep, but will the property in
the subset still know, that it is originally based on a system property ? If we cannot support
this, we can also stay with the copy ...

> Such a configuration combined with a CompositeConfiguration
> could solve
> Bug 26066. This would require a <system> element handled by the
> ConfigurationFactory.

Yes, that would be fine.

> Initially I was thinking at supporting this directly in
> interpolateHelper. 

Will come now automatically ... :)

Regards,
Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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