Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:12 PM , Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >>Is it dumb ? Or may it be an advance of the feature promised in > 1.2 >>that will allow inheritence of configs ? > > Just to be precise, no one is able to make any "promises" about any > features for any possible future release.
No need to be so defensive. My english (and myself) is not very accurate, so I correct : "of the feature that some rumors whispered that will maybe allow a form of ineritence of configs in a forward version". > At this point, 1.2 may just > be the patches for minor enhancements that came in while 1.1 was in > never-ending beta, along with the Commons Resources migration. > I'd like to see the same type of element inheritance in all the > configs that we have in the tiles-config, but someone will have to > create and commit the patches for this before it gets slated for a > release. I agree with the tiles-like solution. It's efficent and simple. There's no need to make a complete object-c++-like type of ineritence. Template, default values, and overloading is enought. But if I can give my opinion, one interest of inheritence in config files is not only the factorization of declarations (that multiple files yet allow) but also the ability for third party to deliver some ready-to-use applications that the final user will just need to customise (if he want to) by overloading some configuration such as data sources for exemple. (actualy maybe a "final" feature will be usefull to). Malik. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
