Oliver Heger wrote: [snip] < about the naming: If all our configurations are hierarchical (at least > this is the plan currently), there does not seem to be much point in > calling a concrete implementation > "HierarchicalConfiguration". Therefore > I used the name "InMemoryConfiguration" for the replacement (because > the whole data is stored as ConfigurationNode objects in memory).
+1 > In the first discussions about the new configuration2 branch somebody > suggested using a different package structure, which is more > focused on > modularity, i.e. there should be packages containing configuration > implementations with a specific functionality. I would like to follow > this suggestion. Any objections or further comments? +1 - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
