I don't really have much of an opinion either way, but... If I were to pick sides I would favor something like [setup] or [config] rather then [beans] or [main].
I agree with most of the previous comments, beans is very developer oriented (bad for support engineers), main is not descriptive enough. 2010/5/9 Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]> > 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 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >
