shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Beeson <erik.bee...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Date Sun, 09 May 2010 03:02:39 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but "beans" doesn't seem very meaningful in
the context of Shiro. I think "config" (which would be a bit redundant) or
"setup" might make more sense. Or leave it "main" and have a new global
options section be called "options" or "settings" or something?

In the end, I don't think it matters much. We'll use whatever you do :)

--Erik


On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi Juan,
>
> I think you might have missed my point:
>
> The [main] section today IS the same thing as a Spring-style
> configuration - it just uses INI instead of XML.  It configures
> JavaBeans and builds object graphs and nothing else.  That's why I'd
> like to change the name to [beans] - so the section name correctly
> reflects the current behavior.
>
> I also wanted to change the name so that if we ever decided to bring
> back the [main] section, it could be used for things other than
> beans-style configuration.  You can't mix them both in the same
> section.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Juan Chung <jiayanchung@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [beans] is a more general name, it likes spring-style configuration. so
> > it cannot clearly express this section's function in Shiro.
> >
> > but [main] is a more meaningful name for Shiro, it tells the end-user it
> > lies in the Core of Shiro, without it Shiro will not be able to work.
> >
> > I think [main] is a better name than [beans] in Shiro.
> >
> > On 2010-5-9 7:27, Les Hazlewood wrote:
> >>
> >> The [main] section now exists for the sole purpose of java-beans-style
> >> creation, configuration, and object graph assembly.
> >>
> >> Because of this, I'm thinking the [main] section should be renamed to
> >> [beans] to indicate this.  The idea is that it is easily conceivable
> >> that we'll need a [main] section at some time for framework-wide
> >> directives that might not be able to be represented as a bean/property
> >> configuration line.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Les
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message