Hi,
using Java 8 I wouldn't see as a blocker. IMHO it is ok that specific
extensions rely on Java 8. Maybe I am a little bit relaxed in this point
as I never supported the Java 7 backport. ;-)
Usage of formats - I see your point. But on the other side the builder
should support building a configuration "by hand" and therefore I think
the user must be able to add resources easily without implementing a
PropertySource or PropertySourceProvider. Hence IMHO we should support
formats. Also we allowed that extensions can use each other. I hope I am
right in this aspect.
Modules in package name - Mapper of opinion. Therefore I will not
discuss it here and will remove the modules package. ;-)
Setters - Using setters is a different approach and not compatible with
the idea of a builder (IMHO). The semantic of setXYZ is to provide a new
set of artifacts which replace the existing set. addXYZ adds only new
artifacts to an existing set of artifacts. And last but not least a
build is meant for those who will wire their configuration by hand.
WDYT? I am open for a discussion.
Bye,
OliverN
Am 13.03.15 um 07:40 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
Me too
Few blockers:
- java8
- rely on formats
- not linked to this module but Class as key for converters
- modules in package name - should never appear to ease refactoring and
information bought is null
- support setters as well or fluent setters to be IoC config friendly
Wdyt?
Le 12 mars 2015 19:47, "Oliver B. Fischer" <[email protected]> a
écrit :
Hi,
I finished the configuration builder. I would like to see it as part of
the 0.1 release.
Bye,
Oliver
--
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
--
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
