Ah, interesting Erik - that could work too. Thanks for the feedback! If anyone else wants to offer feedback, please do so soon - I hope to wrap this up as soon as possible to be code complete for 1.0 by Monday at the latest.
Thanks, Les On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Erik Beeson <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand what you're saying, but "beans" doesn't seem very meaningful in > the context of Shiro. I think "config" (which would be a bit redundant) or > "setup" might make more sense. Or leave it "main" and have a new global > options section be called "options" or "settings" or something? > > In the end, I don't think it matters much. We'll use whatever you do :) > > --Erik > > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> >
