IMO too, "beans" would sound kinda misleading.... even if it does cover what
is actually happen ("bean wiring") more better than "main".Thanks, ~t~ On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually Juan, your point is well taken - we'll keep [main] :) If we > need another section for 'meta config', we can figure out what that > name would be later. > > Thanks for your feedback - it has been valuable! > > Best, > > Les > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Juan Chung <[email protected]> wrote: > > how about "SecurityManagerConfig" ? As I know, currently "main" section > in > > Shiro is responsbile for initializing SecurityManager > > and different kinds of realms. > > > > On 2010-5-9 11:29, Kalle Korhonen wrote: > >> > >> I would agree with Erik. Bean just doesn't exist in Shiro vocabulary > >> so why introduce it now. "main" may or may not be a weak choice but > >> that's what it's been and we don't know now any better what the future > >> holds, so I'd be inclined to just leave it as "main". > >> > >> Kalle > >> > >> > >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Les Hazlewood<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >
