On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:42, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Ok I see your point. There was a support for default values in
> PropertiesConfiguration some time ago but we removed it in favor of
> CompositeConfiguration. For consistency I think we will apply the same
> reasoning for INIConfiguration, th
On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:32, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > Many application ini files have some kind of default-section.
> > Consider the following ini-file:
>
> [snip]
>
> well, such a behaviour would be different from all other configuration
> implemnetations and I don't think it is worth the hass
Oliver Siegmar wrote:
Many application ini files have some kind of default-section. Consider the
following ini-file:
[default]
foo = 30
val = 50
[section1]
foo = 10
Ok I see your point. There was a support for default values in
Pr
Oliver Siegmar wrote on Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:12 AM:
> On Thursday 14 April 2005 10:55, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> Oliver Siegmar wrote:
>>> Does your implementation has default (a.k.a. global, a.k.a. common)
>>> section support?
>>
>> What do you mean by default section exactly ? Currently m
On Thursday 14 April 2005 10:55, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Oliver Siegmar wrote:
> > Does your implementation has default (a.k.a. global, a.k.a. common)
> > section support?
>
> What do you mean by default section exactly ? Currently my
> implementation does the following:
Many application ini files
Oliver Siegmar wrote:
Does your implementation has default (a.k.a. global, a.k.a. common) section
support?
What do you mean by default section exactly ? Currently my
implementation does the following:
- config.addProperty("foo.bar.xyz", "123") creates a [foo] section with
a bar.xyz property:
