You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by "Dennis Kuehn (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/01/11 14:32:27 UTC
[jira] Created: (CONFIGURATION-248) Safeguard config source
abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
Safeguard config source abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CONFIGURATION-248
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248
Project: Commons Configuration
Issue Type: Wish
Affects Versions: 1.3 Final
Environment: -
Reporter: Dennis Kuehn
I hope I get this right:
When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration objects from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern, like when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common superclass "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present for leaf nodes (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (CONFIGURATION-248) Safeguard config source
abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
Posted by "Oliver Heger (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Oliver Heger updated CONFIGURATION-248:
---------------------------------------
Affects Version/s: (was: 1.3 Final)
2.0
I agree that a future version of the Configuration interface should support the special operations for hierarchical configurations. Non hierarchical configurations can be seen as a "flat" special case for hierarchical configurations. However because this is a major change that would break binary compatibility, such a change can only be done in a major release, i.e. for Commons Configuration 2.0.
In the meantime: Did you see the CombinedConfiguration class? This is a hierarchical version of CompositeConfiguration.
> Safeguard config source abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CONFIGURATION-248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248
> Project: Commons Configuration
> Issue Type: Wish
> Affects Versions: 1.3 Final
> Environment: -
> Reporter: Dennis Kuehn
> Fix For: 2.0
>
>
> I hope I get this right:
> When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
> It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration classes from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern. This also happens when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common supertype "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present in leaf node instances (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (CONFIGURATION-248) Safeguard config source
abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
Posted by "Oliver Heger (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Oliver Heger updated CONFIGURATION-248:
---------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 2.0
Affects Version/s: (was: 2.0)
1.3 Final
> Safeguard config source abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CONFIGURATION-248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248
> Project: Commons Configuration
> Issue Type: Wish
> Affects Versions: 1.3 Final
> Environment: -
> Reporter: Dennis Kuehn
> Fix For: 2.0
>
>
> I hope I get this right:
> When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
> It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration classes from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern. This also happens when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common supertype "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present in leaf node instances (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
[jira] Updated: (CONFIGURATION-248) Safeguard config source
abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
Posted by "Dennis Kuehn (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Dennis Kuehn updated CONFIGURATION-248:
---------------------------------------
Description:
I hope I get this right:
When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration classes from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern. This also happens when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common supertype "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present in leaf node instances (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
was:
I hope I get this right:
When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration objects from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern, like when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common superclass "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present for leaf nodes (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
> Safeguard config source abstraction by using HierarchicalConfiguration as supertype for all configs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CONFIGURATION-248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONFIGURATION-248
> Project: Commons Configuration
> Issue Type: Wish
> Affects Versions: 1.3 Final
> Environment: -
> Reporter: Dennis Kuehn
>
> I hope I get this right:
> When I have a CompositeConfiguration, the nice thing about it is that I don't have to care in which file or file type a config entry has been defined. Now when part of my CompositeConfiguration has a hierarchical structure and I need the API provided by HierarchicalConfiguration, I lose the aforementioned abstraction: I need to cast a specific part of my CompositeConfiguration to HierarchicalConfiguration. This is a major design problem!
> It would be better to leverage the Composite Pattern here: derive all configuration classes from HierarchicalConfiguration. Put differently, move the HierarchicalConfiguration API to Configuration. Even if a config is not hierarchically structured, methods for hierarchical access will be present, but that's a minor drawback which is intrinsic to the Composite Pattern. This also happens when you are modelling a tree structure and you have a common supertype "Node" which has a method "getSubNodes()" which will also be present in leaf node instances (in this case, "getSubNodes()" would return null etc.).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org