Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>>The configuration package is pretty good, however we should include
>>>the same disclaimer text as mentioned in the thread on
>>>Parameterizable.
>>
>>*if* we put it there (still against it)
>>
>>>Also we should add a branch(Configuration config, String
>>
>>newRootName)
>>
>>>to the ConfigurationUtil class....
>>
>>?
>
> I find it useful--especially when I need to branch configuration
> information that is 90% the same.
My ? was because I don't understand what you mean by branching configs,
not that I'm against it.
>
>>BTW, there is a commons-configuration going on.
>>How should we cope with that?
>
> There is? Don't they know they should work with tried and tested
> interfaces?
>
> :)
>
> Seriously, they do need to be made *aware* of what we have, and
> figure out what their configuration package hopes to accomplish
> that is beyond ours.
Well, basically it's about being indipendent of Configuration stuff like
commons-logging does (IIUC)
Now that Turbine folks seem to be interested in Avalon, since they are
usually very active on the Commons Project, we could get a hand from
them and finally reconciliate this fracture on common finctionality.
Jason, any pointers?
I think you could really help us on this :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
