A while ago we discussed whether in Configuration 2.0 the fundamental
Configuration object should be an interface or an (abstract) class, and
- as usual ;-) - we could not agree on a way to go.
Therefore I suggest the following compromise:
We keep an interface - let's call it ConfigurationSource - that is a
stripped down version of the Configuration interface we have now. This
interface contains only basic operations needed for accessing properties
in their "raw" form.
What is now AbstractConfiguration can become a concrete class
"Configuration". This class will be associated with a
ConfigurationSource object and implement more sophisticated operations
on top of it. Here stuff like data conversion, interpolation, or
enhanced query facilities is implemented.
An advantage of this approach is that we have a cleaner separation
between the basic management of configuration properties and high-level
processing of their values. We still have an interface, which has
benefits, e.g. for providing mock implementations or proxies, but
extensions can be implemented in a binary compatible way by modifying
the new Configuration class (and maybe defining sub interfaces of
ConfigurationSource). Because the ConfigurationSource interface has only
a handful of methods, it is easier to implement than the overloaded
Configuration interface of today.
I checked in a first draft version of a ConfigurationSource interface
[1]. Of course we can discuss the methods this interface should have.
For instance, methods like flush() and sync() dealing with persistence
could be added.
WDYT?
Oliver
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/configuration/branches/configuration2_experimental/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/configuration2/base/ConfigurationSource.java?view=log
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
