> > This is already working? Ups, didn't now that... > > No, it is the responsibility of the Container to require or allow those semantics. > The reason being is that not all container allow or should allow configuration > including.
Makes sense > > At least that would be nicer than the XML entity approach. > > True. [snip] > > Yes, including was it in the first place... but I now I really like > > this approach... I'm sure one can say it comes from the FS at the moment > > ;) but I'm sure there some nice use-cases for this... > > > > But what I like most about it... it's so straight forward when > > programming... The CM does it, the RM does it, so I thought this might > > also be possible with the Configuration (altough it's not a Manager) but I > > don't think this pattern has to be tied only to Managers. > > > > Maybe it makes even more to just add another constructor to the > > AbstractConfiguration class and implement in there. "Cascading" _might_ > > not exactly the right name... don't know > > > I think the AbstractConfiguration with the parent constructor would be enough. > I think we may be doing it with Parameters as well. Do you want me to prepare a patch for the AbstractConfiguration? -- Torsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
