True.. But, you could grab the propertiesConfiguration out of the composite and save it.. I think the composite should be looked at as a read only "thing" because saving has too many odd ramifications..
What kind of ramifications? I was planning to experiment the addition of a save() method on the CompositeConfiguration class.
And, at least, the one user who mentioned the AbstractConfiguration(Configuration conf) is actually using a CompositeConfig anyway, and needs that exact same problem solved..
Let's deprecate it and wait for user feedback after the 1.0 release maybe? This constructor is inherited from the java.util.Properties constructor using a default properties, people migrating their code might expect this similarity. It's already there, well tested, not causing much troubles and easy to use, for these reasons I would keep it.
Emmanuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
