commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject RE: [configuration] Roadmap
Date Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:36:19 GMT
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Thursday, March 04, 2004 6:33 PM:

> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> 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).
> On the other hand most 1.3 environnements have the xml apis
> included in
> the jdk 1.4 as external jars. It's difficult to live without
> them ;) But
> I agree it doesn't hurt to have a dom4j implementation.
>>> 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 ...
> Currently a subset is already a copy of the configuration
> with shortened
> keys, so once it is created it is disconnected from the parent
> configuration. I didn't notice this but you raise an
> interesting issue,
> that would be nice to keep the subset connected to the configuration,
> any change in the parent or in the subset being available in
> the other
> configuration.

At least if you come to the DB, this is necessary ...
... and leads to another interesting idea: What about a decorator for an UnmodifiableConfiguration
Just like it is done in java.util.Collections. Modification will throw (you will not have
the authorization to write in every DB or LDAP or ... anyway).


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

View raw message