Leo Sutic wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sylvain Wallez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: den 1 oktober 2001 15:21 > > To: Avalon Development > > Subject: Re: [Vote] Namespace support for Configuration objects > > > > I agree with you, W3C DOM APIs are painful to use. But don't you think > > that by adding namespace in Configuration, and then selection by > > namespace and then... , you will end up with a yet another java-friendly > > equivalent to DOM when there are already JDOM and DOM4J ? > > Sylvain, > since both Configuration and *DOM* deals with XML data it is unavoidable > that there are similarities. This is not reason enough to discard Berin's > suggestion. > > I am not allowed to vote, but here's my take on it: > > - Namespaces are orthogonal to XML: They appear in XML, C++, Java > (packages) and so on. > > - Not supporting namespaces means that the Configuration objects are not as > flexible as they could be, as we restrict the set of tree structures that > can be contained in a configuration object. There is, for example, no way to > express what Berin is trying to express. > > - I don't see the restriction as a strength. Allowing namespaces will not > make use of Configuration instances more difficult for non-namespace using > components, neither will it violate any contracts set up for the > Configuration interface. (I have much more doubt about the modifiable > configuration interfaces I've seen discussed here.) > > - I see no reason not to include namespaces. The only opposition I've seen > is that it would make Configuration too much like DOM, and I do not consider > that a point against it. The strengths of the Configurable interface, as I > see it, is that is connects with the Component Manager, the configuration > files, and the component life cycle. It provides an easy way to configure > component managers, components and sub-components via the Configurable > interface. > > So if I could vote, it would be a +1.
Well argued, and explained. > > (In fact, I'd like to extend the Configurable interface with one method: > > Node getValueAsDOM (); > > Then, you can not only store Strings, ints, booleans and floats, but also > XML data in configurations.) I would be -1 on this. Configuration is built from SAX currently, and adding DOM nodes to the Configuration tree removes one of their main virtues: the fact that they consume fewer resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
