<Configuration> > AsynchronousPool.CorePoolSize = 10 > AsynchronousPool.MaximumPoolSize = 10 > AnyPropertyPrefix.someproperty = foo > org.quartz.scheduler.instanceName = my-app > org.quartz.scheduler.instanceId = my-bean > org.quartz.threadPool.threadCount = 10 > org.quartz.threadPool.class = org.superbiz.MyCustomThreadPool > org.quartz.plugin.LogPlugin.class = org.superbiz.MyLogPlugin > org.quartz.plugin.LogPlugin.active = true > </Configuration> > > Thoughts? Given the choice, which would you use? See any third options > that might be cooler? > > I'd use the 2nd option.
> AppContext, ModuleContext, and BeanContext would each get a > `<Configuration>` bucket. There might be a better name than > `<Configuration>`. Maybe `<Properties>` or perhaps even better, > `<Options>` ? > > <Settings> could be an option too. <Options> seems more like command-line options to me so I would say no to that. . > Ideas on something better? Better names maybe? Perhaps `<PojoContext>` > for consistency. Perhaps get really basic and `<ClassContext>` ? > > <PojoContext> would be my choice > ## Standalone apps vs apps with many modules > > <AppContext> > <ModuleContext> > ..... > </ModuleContext> > </AppContext> I would prefer a single ModuleContext nested within an AppContext . The lesser elements one has to remember, the better it is. -- Karan Singh Malhi twitter.com/KaranSinghMalhi
