commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <>
Subject Re: [Configuration] HierarchicalConfiguration in configuration2
Date Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:28:06 GMT
Ralph Goers schrieb:
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Ralph Goers schrieb:
>>> The problem is that in applications using commons config they would 
>>> like to specify an interface in lots of places. 
>>> HierarchicalConfiguration would be perfect for that. It should just 
>>> extend the Configuration interface.
>> It was discussed that in configuration2 all configurations are 
>> hierarchical. In this case there would be the single Configuration 
>> interface, but it would offer the enhanced functionality which is now 
>> provided by HierarchicalConfiguration.
> Now I'm really confused. If this is true then why is there a "flat" 
> package and why do things like the MapConfiguration extend from it?  I'm 
> not sure how you intend to resolve this.
> Ralph
There are of course configurations like MapConfiguration that are not 
hierarchical by nature. The classes in the "flat" package provide a 
hierarchical view on these classes. The idea is that when a hierarchical 
node structure is needed, it is constructed on the fly resulting in a 
root node and all properties stored in the configuration as child nodes. 
(So there is only a single layer hierarchy.)

But this is also experimental. I am not sure whether this is the way to 
go or whether these configurations should be transformed into true 
hierarchical configurations as is done by the 
ConfigurationUtils.convertToHierarchical() method.


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

View raw message