You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shiro.apache.org by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> on 2010/05/09 01:27:11 UTC
Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
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
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Nope, not yet - we haven't had a request for it yet. But that's ok -
> please feel free to add one if you like. But that begs the question -
> if you can do this via Spring's (or Guice's) Java Config, why not just
> use that to configure Shiro? Part of the reason we don't have an XML
> config option is that typically Guice and Spring can do this stuff in
> a more sophisticated way than what we would come up with on our own
> (and who wants to maintain something that complex in a security
> framework ;) ?)
Agree.. You can already use the Shiro API to configure it
programmatically. I really don't know what else there is to add to it.
Specific frameworks (Guice, Spring, Tapestry-IOC) may have their own
IoC annotations that you can by all means use to decorate your Shiro
classes when configuring it.
Kalle
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
> There's a strong need for a decent manual!
Here's what we have thus far:
http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/reference.html
And it's always being added to. Here's the part on configuration:
http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/configuration.html
Externalizing configuration from web.xml is covered here:
http://incubator.apache.org/shiro/web.html
(oddly enough, the Confluence exports are not formatting code blocks
correctly. Try the wiki version for a nicer look and feel until the
export/template stuff is fixed:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SHIRO/Reference)
I hope that helps! The new site template that will be in place for
the 1.0 release will make this stuff easier to find, I promise ;)
Also, any time you have any suggestions for the documentation, please
let us know!
> But it still would be great if you could consider java config style
> This is a thing worth placing in the issue tracker. But isn't it there already?
Nope, not yet - we haven't had a request for it yet. But that's ok -
please feel free to add one if you like. But that begs the question -
if you can do this via Spring's (or Guice's) Java Config, why not just
use that to configure Shiro? Part of the reason we don't have an XML
config option is that typically Guice and Spring can do this stuff in
a more sophisticated way than what we would come up with on our own
(and who wants to maintain something that complex in a security
framework ;) ?)
- Les
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Michał Minicki <ma...@aie.pl>.
I see we agree to disagree, so that sums it up I suppose :)
And I'm perfectly ok with ini files, actually. Well, as long as I can
keep them out of web.xml - I honestly didn't know you could place the
file on the classpath, so thank you for that, Les. No more whining
from me. At least on that matter. There's a strong need for a decent
manual!
But it still would be great if you could consider java config style
which you have omitted in your reply. I guess I haven't been able to
state my thoughts clearly enough, so let me show you a little example
from Spring's Java Config manual to make things a little bit more
understandable (we all understand code better, right?). When I have
mentioned strongly typed config I had something like that in mind:
@Configuration
public class AppConfig {
@Bean
public Foo foo() {
return new Foo(bar());
}
@Bean
public Bar bar() {
return new Bar();
}
}
http://static.springsource.org/spring-javaconfig/docs/1.0.0.M4/reference/html/ch02s02.html
http://www.springsource.org/javaconfig
This is a thing worth placing in the issue tracker. But isn't it there already?
Best regards,
Michał
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 19:55, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Michał - thanks for the feedback! Please see inline below.
>
>> Now they need to grasp another format (so it's the case against
>> YAML as well).
>
> INI is nearly identical to .properties, and quite a few developers
> have had exposure to it in many contexts (mysql.ini, windows .ini), so
> it's not much to ask them to consider it. I personally don't agree
> with your arguments about not using it or YAML due to them not being
> common: YAML for me at least is a huge improvement over XML. I
> consider it progress :) But again, this is a preference issue.
>
>> Now, if I get it correctly (haven't looked at the actual code, sorry),
>> you have used ini blocks to separate concerns.
>
> Yep, exactly.
>
>> The thing is, the same ini file is
>> parsed differently based on context and I feel that separate property
>> files would be more fitting in that case; as it would hint that the
>> files are used to accomplish different things.
>
> That's a fair comment, but I can tell you that most of our users do
> prefer having all of their Shiro configuration in a single location
> because it makes it easy to manage it all from one place. But you're
> right, if the file got really large, it could be a burden (in practice
> though, most Shiro configurations are incredibly short since Shiro's
> defaults do so much for you out-of-the box). And if you're defining
> hundreds of users via text, I would consider that a warning sign that
> a proper data source should be used instead, like LDAP or an RDBMS.
>
> But this is all about preferences right? To that end, it would be
> _extremely_ easy for us to support this. Most people don't know this,
> but the Ini class actually uses Properties objects to create each each
> section into a Map<String,String> of properties - we just leverage
> existing Java functionality :)
>
> So, if you wanted to provide 4 Properties objects (or .properties
> files) - main, urls, users, roles - it would be extremely simple to
> support this. Trivial in fact. We would just create an INI to wrap
> those 4 properties objects and process it as we would have the INI
> file - there is no difference to the code.
>
> If you feel this would be valuable, please open a Jira feature request
> so the dev team can consider it for a future release. We'll do what
> the community wants in all cases: if a decent amount of people want
> separate .properties configuration support, we'll do it :)
>
>> One thing I would work on is to provide sensible defaults so that it
>> should suffice to place a filter on a webapp and it would just work on
>> defaults without any config at all.
>
> It does indeed work this way, with one notable exception: Realms. At
> least 1 Realm must be configured for Shiro to work properly - it has
> no idea how to get authentication or authorization data without at
> least one Realm. So, you can use the [users] section for very simple
> cases (which implicitly creates a Realm), or configure a Realm in
> [main] for more complex data connections.
>
> But that's it! Sensible defaults exist for literally every other part
> of Shiro out of the box :)
>
> Anyway, I am done causing your eyes to strain with so much text :)
> Your feedback is always appreciated! And again, if you feel you want
> .properties support, please open a Jira issue request. We are
> community driven after all!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Les
>
--
Michał Minicki
martel@post.pl
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Hi Michał - thanks for the feedback! Please see inline below.
> Now they need to grasp another format (so it's the case against
> YAML as well).
INI is nearly identical to .properties, and quite a few developers
have had exposure to it in many contexts (mysql.ini, windows .ini), so
it's not much to ask them to consider it. I personally don't agree
with your arguments about not using it or YAML due to them not being
common: YAML for me at least is a huge improvement over XML. I
consider it progress :) But again, this is a preference issue.
> Now, if I get it correctly (haven't looked at the actual code, sorry),
> you have used ini blocks to separate concerns.
Yep, exactly.
> The thing is, the same ini file is
> parsed differently based on context and I feel that separate property
> files would be more fitting in that case; as it would hint that the
> files are used to accomplish different things.
That's a fair comment, but I can tell you that most of our users do
prefer having all of their Shiro configuration in a single location
because it makes it easy to manage it all from one place. But you're
right, if the file got really large, it could be a burden (in practice
though, most Shiro configurations are incredibly short since Shiro's
defaults do so much for you out-of-the box). And if you're defining
hundreds of users via text, I would consider that a warning sign that
a proper data source should be used instead, like LDAP or an RDBMS.
But this is all about preferences right? To that end, it would be
_extremely_ easy for us to support this. Most people don't know this,
but the Ini class actually uses Properties objects to create each each
section into a Map<String,String> of properties - we just leverage
existing Java functionality :)
So, if you wanted to provide 4 Properties objects (or .properties
files) - main, urls, users, roles - it would be extremely simple to
support this. Trivial in fact. We would just create an INI to wrap
those 4 properties objects and process it as we would have the INI
file - there is no difference to the code.
If you feel this would be valuable, please open a Jira feature request
so the dev team can consider it for a future release. We'll do what
the community wants in all cases: if a decent amount of people want
separate .properties configuration support, we'll do it :)
> One thing I would work on is to provide sensible defaults so that it
> should suffice to place a filter on a webapp and it would just work on
> defaults without any config at all.
It does indeed work this way, with one notable exception: Realms. At
least 1 Realm must be configured for Shiro to work properly - it has
no idea how to get authentication or authorization data without at
least one Realm. So, you can use the [users] section for very simple
cases (which implicitly creates a Realm), or configure a Realm in
[main] for more complex data connections.
But that's it! Sensible defaults exist for literally every other part
of Shiro out of the box :)
Anyway, I am done causing your eyes to strain with so much text :)
Your feedback is always appreciated! And again, if you feel you want
.properties support, please open a Jira issue request. We are
community driven after all!
Cheers,
Les
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Michał Minicki <ma...@aie.pl>.
Thanks for taking time to respond to this, Les.
Why ini bothers me? It's just a matter of personal taste, really. It
feels polluted to me. I'll try to show you why but as it touches
personal preferences it may sound silly.
For starters, I feel that by introducing ini parsing you add something
that's alien to Java programmers who are used to property files and
xml. Now they need to grasp another format (so it's the case against
YAML as well). Not to mention you need to create special parsers
instead of using familiar standard language provided classes and
clutter application with unnecessary classes or library dependencies.
Now, if I get it correctly (haven't looked at the actual code, sorry),
you have used ini blocks to separate concerns. I get that (see, you
wanted the name of the block changed so it would correctly reflect the
behavior in the code). But plain property files can't do that, so ini
was a natural and easy choice. The thing is, the same ini file is
parsed differently based on context and I feel that separate property
files would be more fitting in that case; as it would hint that the
files are used to accomplish different things.
You asked on my take on the problem. Well, I don't have enough
experience with Shiro to give any solutions or educated guesses but
this is what comes to my mind.
Look, if your configuration gets big - 1000 users, hundreds of URI to
configure - the one ini file starts to make things ugly. It will take
more and more time to find specific bits of configuration. It would be
much easier if URI, user and bean specific configs would be stored in
separate files. I don't see how multiple config files are bad but I
get that someone can dislike that. So that leaves us with another
feasible option - you still have XML, which has been designed with
that problem in mind exactly (hint: hierarchical data and namespaces).
I know that XML is verbose but doesn't have to be; with a careful
design.
You could give users choice by writing separate adapters - INI, XML
and property files. But I would advise against that. In the end you
will spend more and more time on getting every config to work instead
of focusing on what's important (like getting new versions of auth
schemes to work).
So my advise would be to stick to standards - properties or xml; which
one I don't really care. BUT. With latest trends to configure
everything in a strongly typed environments (Spring Configuration,
Google Guice, etc) I would vote for a standardized Java only
configuration as the main way. And to provide xml, properties (or even
ini) adapters for the people who like to keep their configuration this
way.
One thing I would work on is to provide sensible defaults so that it
should suffice to place a filter on a webapp and it would just work on
defaults without any config at all. Of course one could tweak
everything later but it would be so much easier for new people to jump
on this wagon.
Well, I wanted to make things concise and I failed. Sorry for ranting :)
Best regards,
Michal
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:02, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Michał,
>
> I'm not sure why INI should bother you - INI is nothing more than
> .properties segmented by section headers. I personally much prefer
> Shiro's INI config or something like YAML, over say, verbose XML. But
> for those that do like XML, there is always Spring XML which works
> quite well for configuring Shiro if that's your flavor. Any
> JavaBeans-friendly text-based configuration mechanism would be fine
> for Shiro really. But here is a little interesting back story:
>
> Shiro's earliest incarnation of configuration was in fact a
> .properties file. But it quickly showed its problems: Configuring the
> SecurityManager object graph(s), the URL-specific filter chains (a
> concept that the servlet specification/web.xml doesn't even support),
> and static users and roles are all significantly different
> configuration efforts - doing it all in a single .properties file was
> a huge pain for end-users because of the lack of namespacing - you
> pretty much had to come up with weird prefixing schemes for all the
> properties (user.1.foo = bar, user.2.baz = blah, etc).
>
> The only reasonable choice was to 'chunk' up those 4 different efforts
> somehow - we could have broken them out into multiple files (which
> most people would hate), or you find a way to make namespacing work in
> a clean way without weird prefixes to properties. INI seemed to fit
> that need perfectly with its section construct.
>
> Also note that Shiro's INI configuration does not need to be embedded
> in web.xml. It can be located in any resource location
> (file:///some/path/to/some.ini or url:http://some/location/shiro.ini
> or classpath:some/package/location/shiro.ini), but many just drop a
> shiro.ini at the root of the classpath which is picked up
> automatically. I do this for my apps, because I too don't like to
> bloat the web.xml file. But you have choices :)
>
> I hope that helps clarify some of the reasons why things exist as they
> do today. But, more importantly, if you have any suggestions on the
> configuration format to make it better - we're all ears! We always
> appreciate feedback :)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Les
>
> 2010/5/10 Michał Minicki <ma...@aie.pl>:
>> For what it's worth, I don't like the "ini" configuration as it's just
>> not a standard Java way of setting stuff. I would prefer plain
>> .properties over that. And even that should reside in a separate file;
>> in order not to clutter web.xml with two different sets of option
>> types (it has xml extension for a reason there).
>>
>> I'm pretty new to Shiro but I do like it's design. It's clean and is
>> well designed. In fact I like it much better that Spring Security
>> (Acegi) which is simply ugly to me. But this ini config makes Shiro
>> look hackish on a first glance. Or at least that was the case when I
>> first read about Shiro.
>>
>> I'm sorry for talking a little bit off topic. But this whole
>> discussion about main/beans naming made me snap.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michał
>>
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:53, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't really have much of an opinion either way, but... If I were to pick
>>> sides I would favor something like [setup] or [config] rather then [beans]
>>> or [main].
>>> I agree with most of the previous comments, beans is very developer oriented
>>> (bad for support engineers), main is not descriptive enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/5/9 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
>>>>
>>>> IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover
>>>> what is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~t~
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
>>>>> need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
>>>>> name would be later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
>>>>> > in
>>>>> > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
>>>>> > and different kinds of realms.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>>>>> >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>>>>> >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>>>>> >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Kalle
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>>>>> >>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by
>>>>> >>> Monday
>>>>> >>> at the latest.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Thanks,
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Les
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michał Minicki
>> martel@post.pl
>>
>
--
Michał Minicki
martel@post.pl
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Hi Michał,
I'm not sure why INI should bother you - INI is nothing more than
.properties segmented by section headers. I personally much prefer
Shiro's INI config or something like YAML, over say, verbose XML. But
for those that do like XML, there is always Spring XML which works
quite well for configuring Shiro if that's your flavor. Any
JavaBeans-friendly text-based configuration mechanism would be fine
for Shiro really. But here is a little interesting back story:
Shiro's earliest incarnation of configuration was in fact a
.properties file. But it quickly showed its problems: Configuring the
SecurityManager object graph(s), the URL-specific filter chains (a
concept that the servlet specification/web.xml doesn't even support),
and static users and roles are all significantly different
configuration efforts - doing it all in a single .properties file was
a huge pain for end-users because of the lack of namespacing - you
pretty much had to come up with weird prefixing schemes for all the
properties (user.1.foo = bar, user.2.baz = blah, etc).
The only reasonable choice was to 'chunk' up those 4 different efforts
somehow - we could have broken them out into multiple files (which
most people would hate), or you find a way to make namespacing work in
a clean way without weird prefixes to properties. INI seemed to fit
that need perfectly with its section construct.
Also note that Shiro's INI configuration does not need to be embedded
in web.xml. It can be located in any resource location
(file:///some/path/to/some.ini or url:http://some/location/shiro.ini
or classpath:some/package/location/shiro.ini), but many just drop a
shiro.ini at the root of the classpath which is picked up
automatically. I do this for my apps, because I too don't like to
bloat the web.xml file. But you have choices :)
I hope that helps clarify some of the reasons why things exist as they
do today. But, more importantly, if you have any suggestions on the
configuration format to make it better - we're all ears! We always
appreciate feedback :)
Best regards,
Les
2010/5/10 Michał Minicki <ma...@aie.pl>:
> For what it's worth, I don't like the "ini" configuration as it's just
> not a standard Java way of setting stuff. I would prefer plain
> .properties over that. And even that should reside in a separate file;
> in order not to clutter web.xml with two different sets of option
> types (it has xml extension for a reason there).
>
> I'm pretty new to Shiro but I do like it's design. It's clean and is
> well designed. In fact I like it much better that Spring Security
> (Acegi) which is simply ugly to me. But this ini config makes Shiro
> look hackish on a first glance. Or at least that was the case when I
> first read about Shiro.
>
> I'm sorry for talking a little bit off topic. But this whole
> discussion about main/beans naming made me snap.
>
> Best regards,
> Michał
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:53, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't really have much of an opinion either way, but... If I were to pick
>> sides I would favor something like [setup] or [config] rather then [beans]
>> or [main].
>> I agree with most of the previous comments, beans is very developer oriented
>> (bad for support engineers), main is not descriptive enough.
>>
>>
>> 2010/5/9 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
>>>
>>> IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover
>>> what is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".
>>> Thanks,
>>> ~t~
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
>>>> need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
>>>> name would be later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Les
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
>>>> > in
>>>> > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
>>>> > and different kinds of realms.
>>>> >
>>>> > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>>>> >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>>>> >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>>>> >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Kalle
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>>>> >>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by
>>>> >>> Monday
>>>> >>> at the latest.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Les
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michał Minicki
> martel@post.pl
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Michał Minicki <ma...@aie.pl>.
For what it's worth, I don't like the "ini" configuration as it's just
not a standard Java way of setting stuff. I would prefer plain
.properties over that. And even that should reside in a separate file;
in order not to clutter web.xml with two different sets of option
types (it has xml extension for a reason there).
I'm pretty new to Shiro but I do like it's design. It's clean and is
well designed. In fact I like it much better that Spring Security
(Acegi) which is simply ugly to me. But this ini config makes Shiro
look hackish on a first glance. Or at least that was the case when I
first read about Shiro.
I'm sorry for talking a little bit off topic. But this whole
discussion about main/beans naming made me snap.
Best regards,
Michał
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:53, Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really have much of an opinion either way, but... If I were to pick
> sides I would favor something like [setup] or [config] rather then [beans]
> or [main].
> I agree with most of the previous comments, beans is very developer oriented
> (bad for support engineers), main is not descriptive enough.
>
>
> 2010/5/9 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
>>
>> IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover
>> what is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".
>> Thanks,
>> ~t~
>>
>> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
>>> need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
>>> name would be later.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
>>> > in
>>> > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
>>> > and different kinds of realms.
>>> >
>>> > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>>> >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>>> >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>>> >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>>> >>
>>> >> Kalle
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>>> >>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by
>>> >>> Monday
>>> >>> at the latest.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Les
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>
>
--
Michał Minicki
martel@post.pl
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Brian Demers <br...@gmail.com>.
I don't really have much of an opinion either way, but... If I were to pick
sides I would favor something like [setup] or [config] rather then [beans]
or [main].
I agree with most of the previous comments, beans is very developer oriented
(bad for support engineers), main is not descriptive enough.
2010/5/9 Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>
> IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover
> what is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".
>
> Thanks,
> ~t~
>
>
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
>> need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
>> name would be later.
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
>> in
>> > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
>> > and different kinds of realms.
>> >
>> > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>> >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>> >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>> >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>> >>
>> >> Kalle
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>> >>>
>> >>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>> >>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>> >>> at the latest.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Les
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net>.
IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover what
is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".
Thanks,
~t~
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
> need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
> name would be later.
>
> Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
>
> Best,
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
> in
> > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
> > and different kinds of realms.
> >
> > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> >>
> >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
> >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
> >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
> >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
> >>
> >> Kalle
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
> >>>
> >>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
> >>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
> >>> at the latest.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Les
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
name would be later.
Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
Best,
Les
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section in
> Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
> and different kinds of realms.
>
> On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>
>> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>>
>>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>>> at the latest.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we
need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that
name would be later.
Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable!
Best,
Les
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section in
> Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
> and different kinds of realms.
>
> On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
>>
>> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
>> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
>> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
>> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>>
>>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>>> at the latest.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
in Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
and different kinds of realms.
On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>> at the latest.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Sounds good :)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>> at the latest.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section
in Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager
and different kinds of realms.
On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote:
> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>> at the latest.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson<er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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<lh...@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<ji...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Sounds good :)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
>
> Kalle
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
>> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
>> at the latest.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Les
>>
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
Kalle
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>
> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
> at the latest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary
so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but
that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future
holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main".
Kalle
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
>
> If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
> wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
> at the latest.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Les
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
at the latest.
Thanks,
Les
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback!
If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to
wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday
at the latest.
Thanks,
Les
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com>.
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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
Hi Les,
I think I do not miss them.I know. whether it names [beans] or [main],
they do the same thing.
but [beans] is developer-oriented, and [main] is end-user-oriented. i.e
[main]
express more information in the context of Shiro as to the end user.
that is why I prefer [main].
On 2010-5-9 10:44, Les Hazlewood 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<ji...@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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
Hi Les,
I think I do not miss them.I know. whether it names [beans] or [main],
they do the same thing.
but [beans] is developer-oriented, and [main] is end-user-oriented. i.e
[main]
express more information in the context of Shiro as to the end user.
that is why I prefer [main].
On 2010-5-9 10:44, Les Hazlewood 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<ji...@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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Erik Beeson <er...@gmail.com>.
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 <lh...@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 <ji...@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
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
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 <ji...@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
>>
>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Les Hazlewood <lh...@apache.org>.
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 <ji...@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
>>
>
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
[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
>
Re: Ini config: Rename [main] section to [beans] ?
Posted by Juan Chung <ji...@gmail.com>.
[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
>
unsubscribe
Posted by ro...@srs.gov.
unsubscribe