On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:45, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > Sent: Thursday, 14 February, 2002 08:41 > > To: Avalon Developers List > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Cascading Configuration > > > > > > I agreee that some form of merging of config trees is useful and > > whether it is done via some sort of new merging Configuration > > implementation or via some more explicit mechaism then it woulld > > still be useful. The client still sees a simple configuration tree > > so there does not need to be any knowledge of backend representation. > > > > However you still didn't answer my queries :) Here are some of them again > > I didn't answer them because I'm not interested in "merging" :-).
Yes you are - you just choose to call it a different name - your explanations demonstrate that quite well ;) However what really concerns me is the non-intuitive nature of the merging process you propose. Namely I would not expect the lone <b/> to be present in result in the example Source: <a><b x="1"/></a> Default: <a><b/></a> Result: <a><b x="1"/><b/></a> Even worse was this example Source: <a><b x="1"/></a> Default: <a><b x="2" y="2"/></a> Result: <a><b x="1" y="2"/><b x="2" y="2"/></a> There is also no mechanisms in place for element removal. Nor non-cloning of default elements or of ... When you said > I do think we should consider management! I agree which is why I dont like the proposal. It is inflexible and non-intuitive ;) -- Cheers, Pete "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." -- Sun Tzu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
