we'll sort it on int order so -1 will do the trick as "usual".
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2014-12-28 17:10 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > I do agree that with the term 'priority' 1 (or 0) is the 'most important one'. > > And that is one of the reasons I don't really like it. > > We really need an open scale. It must always be possible to add some 'even > more important' configuration on top. Thus, the higher the number, the more > important it is (and override less important ConfigSources). > > > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > >> On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 17:03, Romain Manni-Bucau >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > @Mark you proved it is 1-1 with your example. If we use number both >> ways have the same issue. It is common to use string as well and >> tolerate before("application"), after("other source") >> etc...but I >> guess having numbers to start is good enough. Then I prefer the most >> prioritized is 0 but since we have @Priority we should stick to it IMO >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> >> 2014-12-28 16:32 GMT+01:00 Anatole Tresch <[email protected]>: >>> Also confusing sometimes is that with overrriding higher priority sources >>> are added later, since they override others... >>> >>> ... >>> >>> Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun Dec 28 2014 at >> 16:23:20: >>> >>>> Anatole, you've never heard "what's your no 1 priority >> right now?" >>>> >>>> priority is the order in which things get done. >>>> prio 1 : do it now >>>> prio 2 : do it after 1 >>>> prio 3 : do it after 2 >>>> etc >>>> >>>> but how do you add something IN FRONT? Something which is even higher >> prio >>>> than 1? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't care that much about how we call it. But if we keep magic >> numbers >>>> than I really do care that higher values mean 'more important'. >>>> >>>> If you like 'priority' better than 'ordinal' we could >> also go with the >>>> @Priority annotation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 16:15, Anatole Tresch >> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > For less numeric values means less priority as well... >>>> > >>>> > Mark Struberg <[email protected]> schrieb am Sun Dec 28 2014 >> at >>>> 15:40:09: >>>> > >>>> >> We should get a common understanding which of those 2 >> different >>>> approaches >>>> >> we should take. >>>> >> My main concern is that it should be clear as glass for the >> user what >>>> he >>>> >> gets. >>>> >> >>>> >> What has a higher priority? 1, 2, or 3 ? >>>> >> Imo the highes priority is always 1. But then it's really >> hard to add a >>>> >> more important priority. >>>> >> >>>> >> We've discussed this to some extent in OpenWebBeans where >> I first >>>> >> implemented this mechanism in 2009 (see PropertyLoader). And >> back then >>>> we >>>> >> decided to not use 'priority' but 'ordinal'. >> Because the >>>> > higher the ordinal >>>> >> (math) the more important something is. >>>> >> That way it is really easy to add a ConfigSource which is >> 'even more >>>> >> important' and thus tweak the effective configuration. >>>> >> >>>> >> What do others think about those 2 approaches? >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> LieGrue, >>>> >> strub >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>
