You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by "Farr, Aaron" <Aa...@am.sony.com> on 2004/02/10 21:55:39 UTC
RE: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote w
ait another couple of days?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Anton Tagunov" [mailto:atagunov@list.ru]
>
> Hi, gang!
>
> Really hate to delay the final vote on this
> not-so-vital issue. However it is only today
> that my ideas got crystallized on the subject.
<snip>
Hmmm. The more I think about the issue, the more I'm starting to agree with
Anton here. Given the current MutableConfiguration interface to build
something like:
<a>
<b>value1</b>
<b>value2</b>
</a>
you need either a factory or a concrete Configuration implementation. In
all other cases, you don't need one. In other words, to build:
<a>
<b>value1</b>
<c>value2</c>
</a>
you don't need the factory or a concrete Configuration implementation.
That's a bit inconsistent. Rather than further muddle up the
getMutableChild() method, the simplest solution would be to add:
/**
* creates a MutableConfiguration node but does add the node to the
* the configuration tree
*/
public MutableConfiguration createMutableConfiguration(final String name)
throws ConfigurationException;
Leo, thoughts?
Also, the getMutableChild() javadocs state:
* If no child with the given name exists, and <code>autoCreate</code>
* is <code>true</code>, a new mutable child is created and added to
* this configuration before being returned.
This is different from the DefaultConfiguration.getChild() method in that
the DefaultConfiguration does NOT add the child to the tree.
J. Aaron Farr
SONY ELECTRONICS
DDP-CIM
(724) 696-7653
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote w
ait another couple of days?
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 21:28, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 February 2004 04:55, Farr, Aaron wrote:
> > Leo, thoughts?
>
> He has expressed his thoughts already in "Idealization was: Yet another IoC
> Article"
>
> <quote author="Leo Sutic">
> I would like to see the MutableConfiguration thread be brought to
> a close. I think that's what I'll be working on 'til the end of
> this year.
> </quote>
>
>
> Personally, I think like this...
> It is tucked away in framework-impl, so let's LSU get his change there first,
> since it is after all a fairly small change.
> Then we can discuss the bigger overhaul called by Anton, to solve the complete
> picture (which evidentily will take a while), and in the process create the
> more formal framework-spi.
>
> How about that?
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
+1
Oh, I agree completely. I'm not changing my vote. I just want to point
out that there is room for improvement and Anton's suggestions have
merit.
--
jaaron <http://jadetower.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote w ait another couple of days?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
+1
Sounds reasonable - you guys, Leo and Anton, willing to do that?
Let's just put an end to this trail :-).
Alex
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:28 PM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote w
> ait another couple of days?
>
> On Wednesday 11 February 2004 04:55, Farr, Aaron wrote:
> > Leo, thoughts?
>
> He has expressed his thoughts already in "Idealization was: Yet another
> IoC
> Article"
>
> <quote author="Leo Sutic">
> I would like to see the MutableConfiguration thread be brought to
> a close. I think that's what I'll be working on 'til the end of
> this year.
> </quote>
>
>
> Personally, I think like this...
> It is tucked away in framework-impl, so let's LSU get his change there
> first,
> since it is after all a fairly small change.
> Then we can discuss the bigger overhaul called by Anton, to solve the
> complete
> picture (which evidentily will take a while), and in the process create
> the
> more formal framework-spi.
>
> How about that?
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote w ait another couple of days?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 11 February 2004 04:55, Farr, Aaron wrote:
> Leo, thoughts?
He has expressed his thoughts already in "Idealization was: Yet another IoC
Article"
<quote author="Leo Sutic">
I would like to see the MutableConfiguration thread be brought to
a close. I think that's what I'll be working on 'til the end of
this year.
</quote>
Personally, I think like this...
It is tucked away in framework-impl, so let's LSU get his change there first,
since it is after all a fairly small change.
Then we can discuss the bigger overhaul called by Anton, to solve the complete
picture (which evidentily will take a while), and in the process create the
more formal framework-spi.
How about that?
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: Configuration mutations. 4 more options -- plz can the vote wait another couple of days?
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:Aaron.Farr@am.sony.com]
>
> the simplest solution would be to add:
>
> /**
> * creates a MutableConfiguration node but does add the node to the
> * the configuration tree
> */
> public MutableConfiguration createMutableConfiguration(final
> String name)
> throws ConfigurationException;
>
>
> Leo, thoughts?
This is something that can be solved in a separate proposal, since it
is a backwards-compatible, fairly minor, change.
I suggest we get this vote through, and then you can type up a proposal
for whatever additional changes it is you want, and then we'll do the
usual discussion, proposal, vote.
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org