verdict: it seems we don't need a 'configuration categories'. If we will hit a blocker then we can always go back thinking about it again.
txs and LieGrue, strub > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 15:53, Anatole Tresch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mark > in Credit Suisse we also had a category feature. To summarize in short: > - nobody understood it > . it was bloated (OK, a different story) > - more or less nobody used it (because of see above) > - we removed it and nobody complained so far > > So I assume, we dont need it. Makes things complicate, and I dont see > advantages/use cases we cannot solve by environments, resolvers etc., even > more flexible and more transparent. > > > Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun Dec 28 2014 at 15:43:17: > >> @Romain: key prefix only. But it is essentially not in the code but only a >> convention. It is pretty similar to the java package structure. Which also >> shows that this approach works in practice. >> >> >> @Oliver: as I said, in DeltaSpike we discussed this as well and decided to >> not need it. But Tamaya has a bit wider approach as it targets not only a >> single application but a whole ecosystem. I'm still a bit undecided > myself. >> But I think we can just start without 'categories' and see how far > we come >> with just namespaces. And if we see a blocker with that then we can still >> go back and add it. >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 14:45, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > > Question is mainly: is it explicit or key prefixes only. Last > works >> for me >> > to start. >> > Le 28 déc. 2014 14:40, "Oliver B. Fischer" >> > <[email protected]> a >> > écrit : >> > >> > >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> >> category seems for me to be very similar to the concept of a >> namespace. Is >> >> there anything we can do with catagories what we cannot do with >> namespaces? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Oliver >> >> >> >> Am 28.12.14 um 11:05 schrieb Mark Struberg: >> >> >> >>> If we manage configuration container wide for multiple > applications >> and >> >>> parts of those then we _might_ like to introduce > 'categories'. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In DeltaSpike we decided to not needing them because it is > easy to >> just >> >>> use namespacing and be done. But DeltaSpike config is mostly > used >> > inside an >> >>> application and Tamaya should target container-wide > configuration. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> So do we need those? >> >>> >> >>> We need to think through a few scenarios e.g. with multiple > WARs >> >>> configured on the same server. And also clustering. >> >>> >> >>> All the configuration along the classpath is 'local' > to the >> > current >> >>> application anyway, but what about java env and properties, > or a >> > database >> >>> configuration? >> >>> Do we simply suggest using namespaces or do we like to > introduce some >> >>> application/category context? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> As always: adding this adds complexity and we really ONLY > must do that >> > if >> >>> the advantages outpace the complexity. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> LieGrue, >> >>> strub >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> N Oliver B. Fischer >> >> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany >> >> P +49 30 44793251 >> >> M +49 178 7903538 >> >> E [email protected] >> >> S oliver.b.fischer >> >> J [email protected] >> >> X http://xing.to/obf >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
