+1 for removing the old configurations, otherwise that would be
confusing for the users.
Regarding the package structure do you have other plans besides the
'flat' package ?
Emmanuel Bourg
Agreed. After refactoring of the hierarchical file-based configurations
is complete, it shows that the new configurations are indeed a full
replacement for the old ones: all unit tests are still running.
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).
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?
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
