Thank you Eric ! I noticed you reintroduced a subset() method in the
CompositeConfiguration class, why was this necessary ? I tried to remove
it and all test cases still pass successfully.
Emmanuel Bourg
Eric Pugh wrote:
Applied! Can you review..
Eric
Message-
From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Thank you Eric ! I noticed you reintroduced a subset() method in the
CompositeConfiguration class, why
keep things on track.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Jörg Schaible [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:54 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Hi Eric,
Eric Pugh wrote on Tuesday
Eric Pugh wrote on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:33 AM:
Jörg,
Not sure what happened last night, obviously my fuzzy brain
wasn't working with CVS well. I have just committed all the
SubsetConfiguration that I thought was committed last night!
Would you mind reviewing it for me?
Yes it's
Applied! Can you review..
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 5:28 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Here is a new implementation of the SubsetConfiguration
: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Here is a new implementation of the SubsetConfiguration:
- a null or empty key can now be used to retrieve the subset
root element.
- subset.getKeys() and subset.getKeys(prefix) are now fixed,
previously
they returned the keys of the parent configuration
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Here is a new implementation of the SubsetConfiguration:
- a null or empty key can now be used to retrieve the subset root
element.
- subset.getKeys() and subset.getKeys(prefix) are now fixed,
previously
Jörg Schaible wrote:
after recognizing, that you've attached the diff, I had a look at the
changes in the test case. I am not quite sure, that this is really good.
Intentionally I thought, you would return an empty configuration only, if
the pattern equals the key, but you do so now also if the
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Friday, March 05, 2004 11:38 AM:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
after recognizing, that you've attached the diff, I had a look at the
changes in the test case. I am not quite sure, that this is really
good. Intentionally I thought, you would return an empty
configuration
I tried to push the reasoning a bit further yesterday and observed that
if there is a SubsetConfiguration shifting the parent keys to the left,
we might imagine a SupersetConfiguration shifting the keys to the right
by adding a prefix. Both classes could even be merged into a
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Friday, March 05, 2004 12:17 PM:
I tried to push the reasoning a bit further yesterday and
observed that
if there is a SubsetConfiguration shifting the parent keys to
the left,
we might imagine a SupersetConfiguration shifting the keys to
the right
by adding a
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Looking at the changes for teh test cases, I have the impression that
conf.setProperty(x.y.z, 1);
subset = conf.subset(x.y.z.not_there);
will also return an empty configuration, whereas this return value was previously always just null.
Yes indeed, but since the subset is
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Friday, March 05, 2004 1:27 PM:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Looking at the changes for teh test cases, I have the impression that
conf.setProperty(x.y.z, 1);
subset = conf.subset(x.y.z.not_there);
will also return an empty configuration, whereas this return value
was
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Sure, but here is the compatibility issue:
Configuration config = new BaseConfiguration();
Configuration subset = config.subset(database);
if(subset == null) {
// continue with limited functionality
} else {
Jörg Schaible wrote:
- it fixes Bug 27427
OK. Then don't apply it g
Actually it doesn't fix 27427 completely, the getKeys(prefix) method
will still return an extra key. I'll change the implementation of this
method and use a FilterIterator from [collections] instead, that will
remove the copy
Here is a new implementation of the SubsetConfiguration:
- a null or empty key can now be used to retrieve the subset root element.
- subset.getKeys() and subset.getKeys(prefix) are now fixed, previously
they returned the keys of the parent configuration and not the keys of
the subset.
-
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
I have reimplemented the subset code with a decorator, the pros :
- the resulting code is much cleaner
- it fixes some old quicks
- it fixes Bug 27427
OK. Then don't apply it g
- no property is copied = more memory efficient
- the subset is fully synchronized with
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jörg Schaible
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [configuration] SubsetConfiguration
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
I have reimplemented the subset code with a decorator, the pros :
- the resulting code is much cleaner
- it fixes some
Hi Eric,
Eric Pugh wrote:
Guys.. I have been a little remiss keeping up with the flow of patches..
However, this weekend I will go through them all and try and get all the
good stuff updated.
:)
Emmanuel said he already made 27427 obsolete, but I could not see an issue
in Bugzilla yet.
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Eric,
Eric Pugh wrote:
Guys.. I have been a little remiss keeping up with the flow of patches..
However, this weekend I will go through them all and try and get all the
good stuff updated.
:)
Emmanuel said he already made 27427 obsolete, but I could not see
Hi Emmanuel,
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
I had to change a test for HierarchicalConfiguration, I hope it doesn't
break the initial intent.
after recognizing, that you've attached the diff, I had a look at the
changes in the test case. I am not quite sure, that this is really good.
Intentionally I
21 matches
Mail list logo
