Hi Juan, I think you might have missed my point:
The [main] section today IS the same thing as a Spring-style configuration - it just uses INI instead of XML. It configures JavaBeans and builds object graphs and nothing else. That's why I'd like to change the name to [beans] - so the section name correctly reflects the current behavior. I also wanted to change the name so that if we ever decided to bring back the [main] section, it could be used for things other than beans-style configuration. You can't mix them both in the same section. Does that make sense? Les On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Juan Chung <[email protected]> wrote: > [beans] is a more general name, it likes spring-style configuration. so > it cannot clearly express this section's function in Shiro. > > but [main] is a more meaningful name for Shiro, it tells the end-user it > lies in the Core of Shiro, without it Shiro will not be able to work. > > I think [main] is a better name than [beans] in Shiro. > > On 2010-5-9 7:27, Les Hazlewood wrote: >> >> The [main] section now exists for the sole purpose of java-beans-style >> creation, configuration, and object graph assembly. >> >> Because of this, I'm thinking the [main] section should be renamed to >> [beans] to indicate this. The idea is that it is easily conceivable >> that we'll need a [main] section at some time for framework-wide >> directives that might not be able to be represented as a bean/property >> configuration line. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Les >> > >
