Re: [DISCUSS] [RESOLVED] configuration categories

[Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>]

verdict: it seems we don't need a 'configuration categories'.
If we will hit a blocker then we can always go back thinking about it again.

txs and LieGrue,
strub




> On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 15:53, Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mark
> in Credit Suisse we also had a category feature. To summarize in short:
> - nobody understood it
> . it was bloated (OK, a different story)
> - more or less nobody used it (because of see above)
> - we removed it and nobody complained so far
> 
> So I assume, we dont need it. Makes things complicate, and I dont see
> advantages/use cases we cannot solve by environments, resolvers etc., even
> more flexible and more transparent.
> 
> 
> Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de> schrieb am Sun Dec 28 2014 at 15:43:17:
> 
>>  @Romain: key prefix only. But it is essentially not in the code but only a
>>  convention. It is pretty similar to the java package structure. Which also
>>  shows that this approach works in practice.
>> 
>> 
>>  @Oliver: as I said, in DeltaSpike we discussed this as well and decided to
>>  not need it. But Tamaya has a bit wider approach as it targets not only a
>>  single application but a whole ecosystem. I'm still a bit undecided 
> myself.
>>  But I think we can just start without 'categories' and see how far 
> we come
>>  with just namespaces. And if we see a blocker with that then we can still
>>  go back and add it.
>> 
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 14:45, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>  rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  > > Question is mainly: is it explicit or key prefixes only. Last 
> works
>>  for me
>>  > to start.
>>  > Le 28 déc. 2014 14:40, "Oliver B. Fischer"
>>  > <o....@swe-blog.net> a
>>  > écrit :
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  Hi Mark,
>>  >>
>>  >>  category seems for me to be very similar to the concept of a
>>  namespace. Is
>>  >>  there anything we can do with catagories what we cannot do with
>>  namespaces?
>>  >>
>>  >>  Best,
>>  >>
>>  >>  Oliver
>>  >>
>>  >>  Am 28.12.14 um 11:05 schrieb Mark Struberg:
>>  >>
>>  >>>  If we manage configuration container wide for multiple 
> applications
>>  and
>>  >>>  parts of those then we _might_ like to introduce 
> 'categories'.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  In DeltaSpike we decided to not needing them because it is 
> easy to
>>  just
>>  >>>  use namespacing and be done. But DeltaSpike config is mostly 
> used
>>  > inside an
>>  >>>  application and Tamaya should target container-wide 
> configuration.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  So do we need those?
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  We need to think through a few scenarios e.g. with multiple 
> WARs
>>  >>>  configured on the same server. And also clustering.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  All the configuration along the classpath is 'local' 
> to the
>>  > current
>>  >>>  application anyway, but what about java env and properties, 
> or a
>>  > database
>>  >>>  configuration?
>>  >>>  Do we simply suggest using namespaces or do we like to 
> introduce some
>>  >>>  application/category context?
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  As always: adding this adds complexity and we really ONLY 
> must do that
>>  > if
>>  >>>  the advantages outpace the complexity.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>>  LieGrue,
>>  >>>  strub
>>  >>>
>>  >>
>>  >>  --
>>  >>  N Oliver B. Fischer
>>  >>  A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
>>  >>  P +49 30 44793251
>>  >>  M +49 178 7903538
>>  >>  E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
>>  >>  S oliver.b.fischer
>>  >>  J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
>>  >>  X http://xing.to/obf
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >
>> 
>