My attachment was eaten. Try to zip it... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oliver Heger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [configuration]HierarchicalConfiguration
> Hello, > > I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. > > My problem with the addProperty() method is not caused by some kind of error > a unit test could detect. It's merly a design issue. > > At the moment addProperty() is implemented so that it first handles stuff > related to collections or string values that contain multiple property > values. This is fine because it is a generic feature support by all > configuration classes. But then instead of calling addPropertyDirect() it > calls getPropertyDirect() and performs the adding by hand. Here it creates a > Container if necessary and adds this container by calling > addPropertyDirect(). This part is not compatible with my implementation and > is in my opinion to much tight to a concrete mechanism of storing the > properties. > > I could of course overwrite addProperty() in my implementation, but then I > would have to copy the first part which deals with the collections. > > To demonstrate the direction I am following with my > HierarchicalConfiguration I have attached an early version of a > corresponding unit test. The test of the getProperty() method shows how > single elements of complex property lists can be accessed. > > Greetings > Oli > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Pugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:12 PM > Subject: RE: [configuration]HierarchicalConfiguration > > > > Can you provide a unit test that demonstrates the problem? If the problem > > is because of your specific subclass, can you just create a mock version? > > That way we have something firm to lookat, and then we can discuss the > > pro's/con's of moving the methods around... > > > > Eric > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Oliver Heger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:32 AM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [configuration]HierarchicalConfiguration > > > > > > > > > Hello Eric, > > > > > > I did not mean to remove the whole Container stuff from > > > AbstractConfiguration. I think Containers are still needed > > > (at least) to > > > distinguish results of getPropertyDirect(): is the result a > > > single property > > > of type Collection or is it a list of properties of scalar types? > > > > > > My problem is only with the addProperty() method that is > > > implemented in > > > AbstractConfiguration in a way that it enforces multiple values of a > > > property to be stored in a Container - and I want to do it different. > > > > > > So I would like to suggest to move the part of the > > > AbstractConfiguration.addProperty() method that deals with > > > Container to the > > > addPropertyDirect() method of BaseConfiguration and let > > > AbstractConfiguration.addProperty() call addPropertyDirect > > > instead. This > > > makes it possible to use different storage algorithm in > > > derived classes. > > > > > > As far as I see addProperty() is the only method that assumes such a > > > Container specific storage logic, but there may be other > > > locations I have > > > not found yet. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
