Re: [configuration] Refactor AbstractConfiguration(Configuration defaults)

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Hmm I'm not should we should remove this, even if a 
CompositeConfiguration looks cleaner, it also hides the specific methods 
of the underlying configuration. For example if I work with a 
PropertiesConfiguration, i can no longer call save() if it's embeeded in 
a CompositeConfiguration.

Emmanuel Bourg

Eric Pugh wrote:
Hi all,

Based on the Bugzilla 26694 (BaseConfiguration: containsKey ignores default
properties) bug, I think that the constructor for
AbstractConfiguration(Configuration defaults) should be removed..
Basically it is providing the equivalent of a CompositeConfiguration built
using the ConfigurationFactory's union versus override rules..  The
semantics are kinda weird to have these defaults..  If you want defualts
that are used when something else is missing, then just do:
CompositeConfiguration cc = new CompositeConfiguration();
cc.addConfiguration(myDefaultConfig);
return cc;
And that does the same thing, but cleaner!  Any opinons?  Otherwise I am
going to delete it (after of course going and writing the testcase to prove
26694 (argh!)).
Eric

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]