commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Bourg <>
Subject Re: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespaces
Date Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:44:47 GMT
I don't use ConfigurationFactory but it's definitely useful as a central 
place to configure an application. I think we could even push the 
concept a bit further, after all, the configuration descriptor read by 
ConfigurationFactory *is* a configuration, it's even a file based 
configuration that should be automatically reloaded when the file is 
changed. So, what about the following ideas:

- remove the namespace handling

- make ConfigurationFactory implement FileConfiguration (it already has 
the set/getBasePath() and setGetFileName() methods, load() is easy to 
implement with the current code and there is no need to implement save() 
since it's read only)

- add a <composite> element to load another composite configuration 

- not sure about this one, but ConfigurationFactory and 
CompositeConfiguration could maybe be merged...

Emmanuel Bourg

Eric Pugh wrote:

> Simplicity I think is always a good idea..  I don't use it..  I will say, I
> am not too keen on the ConfiguraitonFactory anyway...  I think I made a hash
> of things when first writing it...
> Eric
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Emmanuel Bourg []
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:52 PM
>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>Subject: [configuration] ConfigurationFactory & namespaces
>>While reviewing ConfigurationFactory I stumbled on the namespace logic,
>>may I ask who is actually using it ? It looks like an unnecessary
>>complexity to me, imho it's easier to have several configuration
>>descriptors rather than a single namespaced descriptor.
>>What do you think ?
>>Emmanuel Bourg

View raw message