David Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > [Please respond inline and don't top-post or the thread will be unreadable. > Just trim the email down to the parts that pertain to the response and > respond > below the part] > > ## Configuration > >[Nested XML vs property-name prefixes] > > Both would actually function. User preference would dictate which is used. > > Thoughts? Given the choice, which would you use? See any third options that > might be cooler?
I would most likely use the second format. I grep config files all the time. > 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>` ? I prefer <Properties> for the simple reason that it reinforces the idea that the syntax is that of a Java properties file (with XML escapes, nota bene). > ## EJB vs Pojo > > - Let people use BeanContext anyway > - Make a new element I believe having different elements here is probably a good idea, to avoid blurring the distinction between EJBs and POJOs. > Ideas on something better? Better names maybe? Perhaps `<PojoContext>` for > consistency. Perhaps get really basic and `<ClassContext>` ? Or maybe <ManagedObjectContext> ? Otherwise I think I prefer <PojoContext> over <ClassContext>. > ## Standalone apps vs apps with many modules > > Or perhaps we want an entirely different root element for standalone apps? How about <WebAppContext> for the standalone? I think that name is intuitive for the standalone WAR case. -- Bjorn Danielsson Cuspy Code AB
