For what it's worth, I don't like the "ini" configuration as it's just not a standard Java way of setting stuff. I would prefer plain .properties over that. And even that should reside in a separate file; in order not to clutter web.xml with two different sets of option types (it has xml extension for a reason there).
I'm pretty new to Shiro but I do like it's design. It's clean and is well designed. In fact I like it much better that Spring Security (Acegi) which is simply ugly to me. But this ini config makes Shiro look hackish on a first glance. Or at least that was the case when I first read about Shiro. I'm sorry for talking a little bit off topic. But this whole discussion about main/beans naming made me snap. Best regards, Michał On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:53, Brian Demers <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >> > > -- Michał Minicki [email protected]
