commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Bourg <sma...@lfjr.net>
Subject Re: [configuration] Loading and Saving
Date Wed, 08 Sep 2004 10:44:31 GMT
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:

> I like all of this. However, even more I'd like to get 1.0 finally out
> of the door. I'm really willing to tell our users, that they can rely
> only on the non-deprecated method signatures in the
> o.a.c.c.Configuration interface and that everything else can and will
> be changed post-1.0, but for the moment, getting this stuff released
> is my #1 prio.

Releasing the 1.0 final is also my top priority, while I agree to 
sacrifice features for this (like automatic reloading, support for 
additional types & more configuration formats) I don't want to sacrifice 
quality (API consistency, testing & documentation), that's why I call 
for these changes now. I don't want to be tied to backward compatibility 
concerns once 1.0 is released because we didn't take the time to address 
these inconsistencies.


> I also like the proposal to make the various implementations
> pluggable. A small application that needs only PropertiesConfiguration
> should not be punished to drag all of the XML libraries
> around. Splitting c-c into a "base" package with maybe only
> commons-lang and commons-collections as dependencies and one or more
> "optional" packages would be a good thing.

I haven't tested but I think it's already the case, you can use 
PropertiesConfiguration without including the XML libraries.


> However, we are already at rc1 state. Pulling the rc1 back would mean,
> that at least I would go ahead an do the Turbine 2.3.1 release on a
> snapshot which would IMHO a sad thing.

Well, the merit of the rc1 is to provide and temporary official release 
that can sweep away the various unofficial snapshots and bring more 
testing and feedback on the project. But I don't consider it good enough 
in this state to become a final release.


> So please. Let's find an agreement on the get<xxx> semantics, do one
> more RC and the CfV the release.

I don't mind if we revert to a null-when-missing semantic now and add a 
switch later for exception-when-missing.

Emmanuel Bourg


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