commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@t-online.de>
Subject Re: [Configuration] Wish list
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:23:02 GMT
Borut BolĨina wrote:

>
> On 26.1.2006 20:53, Oliver Heger wrote:
>
>> If a schema is capable to deal with the required flexibility, it would
>> be really cool to have one. However the XML can become very variable:
>>
>> One feature that is already supported is the ability of setting
>> properties on the newly created Configuration objects. For instance you
>> can write something like that:
>>
>> <properties fileName="..." lineDelimiter=";"
>> throwExceptionOnMissing="true"/>
>>   
>
> Hmmm. IMO setting properties like this isn't in the spirit of
> separating concerns. Putting entries in this configuration for
> configurations file (we are talking about configuration.xml aren't
> we?) introduces another place to look for keys and values. That is
> added complexity. It should be just as easy to have this entries in
> regular property file referenced by configuration.xml entry. Don't you
> think? What is this added value to justify the above example?

This is probably a missunderstanding. Yes, we are talking about the XML
file read by ConfigurationFactory. In this file you define your
configuration objects. Each configuration class can have a set of fields
(and corresponding accessor methods) that control their behavior, e.g.
setThrowExceptionOnMissing() or setListDelimiter() (both defined in
AbstractConfiguration). There must be a way of setting values for these
fields in the configuration definition file. Otherwise you are forced to
call these methods by hand after you have retrieved the
CompositeConfiguration from the ConfigurationFactory.

Oliver

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


Mime
View raw message