commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michiel Kalkman" <michielgkalk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [configuration] Interface vs class
Date Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:43:03 GMT
I don't know the discussion, so the only thing I can say right now, is
that I don't like the names ... Or I just don't understand why it is
called XXXSource, which in my thoughts refers to the resource the
configuration is read from.

How about Configuration for the interface and something like
BaseConfiguration for the class ?

Regards,
Michiel


On 10/30/08, Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de> wrote:
> A while ago we discussed whether in Configuration 2.0 the fundamental
> Configuration object should be an interface or an (abstract) class, and
> - as usual ;-) - we could not agree on a way to go.
>
> Therefore I suggest the following compromise:
> We keep an interface - let's call it ConfigurationSource - that is a
> stripped down version of the Configuration interface we have now. This
> interface contains only basic operations needed for accessing properties in
> their "raw" form.
>
> What is now AbstractConfiguration can become a concrete class
> "Configuration". This class will be associated with a ConfigurationSource
> object and implement more sophisticated operations on top of it. Here stuff
> like data conversion, interpolation, or enhanced query facilities is
> implemented.
>
> An advantage of this approach is that we have a cleaner separation between
> the basic management of configuration properties and high-level processing
> of their values. We still have an interface, which has benefits, e.g. for
> providing mock implementations or proxies, but extensions can be implemented
> in a binary compatible way by modifying the new Configuration class (and
> maybe defining sub interfaces of ConfigurationSource). Because the
> ConfigurationSource interface has only a handful of methods, it is easier to
> implement than the overloaded Configuration interface of today.
>
> I checked in a first draft version of a ConfigurationSource interface [1].
> Of course we can discuss the methods this interface should have. For
> instance, methods like flush() and sync() dealing with persistence could be
> added.
>
> WDYT?
> Oliver
>
> [1]
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/configuration/branches/configuration2_experimental/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/configuration2/base/ConfigurationSource.java?view=log
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message