[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oliver Heger) writes:
>If we have Loccators, IMO there is no need to keep the base path and
>file name stuff in file based configurations. These are things a
+1 !
>concrete Locator has to deal with, and the information needed by a
>Locator may vary. So I suggest the following simple method signature:
> URL locate(); // eventuelly throws ConfigurationException?
+1. With throws, please. We will have to deal with exceptions anyway
and it is the job of the application to do so.
>Concrete Locators should have getter and setter methods for the
>properties they need, e.g. the ClasspathLocator a resource name, the
>URLLocator a URL etc. That way a Locator could be created by Digester
>and initialized with a SetPropertiesRule, which comes in handy when used
>with ConfigurationFactory.
Yes. But in this case, I want to have a C'tor which takes the
parameters directly. I could live with
public class FileLocator implements Locator
{
public FileLocator() {...}
public FileLocator(String dir, String file {
setDirectory(dir);
setFile(file);
}
public void setDirectory(String dir) {...}
public void setFile(String file) {...}
public String getDirectory() {...}
public String getFile() {...}
public URL locate() {...}
}
but I want to be able to write a Configuration load still in one
line. I don't care whether it is
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(
new FileLocator("/tmp", "foo.properties").locate());
or
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(
new FileLocator().locate("/tmp", "foo.properties"));
(though I think that the first one is the better one) but I will not
agree to this as the only way:
Locator loc = new FileLocator();
loc.setDirectory("/tmp");
loc.setFile("foo.properties");
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(loc.locate());
commons-configuration is still a helper to real applications. I want
it lean and easy to use. Which means, for normal users, loading a
configuration is a straightforward one-liner. If we give the locator
implementations some sugar to be used with digester or some other
reflection tool, fine, +1. But this still must be an afterthought, not
the main thing.
Currently, you can write a c-c loading with a single line of code. I
want to keep it like this.
>Usage of a Locator would then look like:
>Locator locator = new MyConcreteLocator();
>// init locator as necessary
>Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(locator);
+1. I can also live with
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(locator.locate());
and let the configuration classes only have C'tors with URL.
>in contrast to
>Locator locator = new MyConcreteLocator();
>Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration();
>conf.setBasePath(...);
>conf.setFileName(...);
>conf.load(locator);
Yep. That would suck. That is why I'd like to have
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(
new MyConcreteLocator("basepath", "file").locate());
as stated above.
My first choice would still be
Configuration conf = new PropertiesConfiguration(
new MyConcreteLocator("basepath", "file"));
and have the configuration classes take a Locator object in its
C'tor. But Emmanuel does not like this.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development
What is more important to you...
[ ] Product Security
or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
-- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
