Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4943D486.4010807@oliver-heger.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:28:06 +0100
From: Oliver Heger <oliver.heger@oliver-heger.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Configuration] HierarchicalConfiguration in configuration2
References: <491A52A5.5080306@dslextreme.com>
 <491B44F6.6070002@oliver-heger.de> <491BDDA1.1080907@dslextreme.com>
 <491C986A.9040403@oliver-heger.de>
 <EA605B98-49CF-4131-A8A9-185EDC613E5E@dslextreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <EA605B98-49CF-4131-A8A9-185EDC613E5E@dslextreme.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Oliver

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