I guess i am the one having spoken of it so let me make it more explicit if needed. I want it for all the reason you mentionned but I never wanted it in our API. I would have liked it in our APIs. We can...should...split write and read API. It also mdans it can wait read paft is clear and done. Le 27 déc. 2014 11:22, "Mark Struberg" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi! > > Do we need a writable PropertySource in our API? > > I don't think we do. But let me explain the _why_! > > > I DO understand that administrators and ops lords&ladies need a way to > sometimes change certain configuration at runtime. They might even be > interested in a graphical UI! > > But still we don't need that in our API. It would be really easy for each > Container (or even as own jar) to add a new PropertySource with a very high > ordinal (basically overriding default values). And this > MutablePropertySourceImpl could e.g. store the configured values in the > database etc. > > > The effect would be that admins could easily tweak those values (and even > make them persistent). And all that without us having to take care of it. > > > The question is now whether we write this into the spec or let container > vendors deal with it? > > > LieGrue, > strub >
