What about defining a static list of default priorities and recommend people to use them. Similar to what was done in EE7: https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/jsr342-experts/archive/2012-12/message/15
On Sun Dec 28 2014 at 11:15:19 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >>>> >> > >>>> > > >>>> > >> >
