Ralph Goers schrieb:
On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
Ralph Goers schrieb:
The problem is that in applications using commons config they would
like to specify an interface in lots of places.
HierarchicalConfiguration would be perfect for that. It should just
extend the Configuration interface.
It was discussed that in configuration2 all configurations are
hierarchical. In this case there would be the single Configuration
interface, but it would offer the enhanced functionality which is now
provided by HierarchicalConfiguration.
Now I'm really confused. If this is true then why is there a "flat"
package and why do things like the MapConfiguration extend from it? I'm
not sure how you intend to resolve this.
Ralph
There are of course configurations like MapConfiguration that are not
hierarchical by nature. The classes in the "flat" package provide a
hierarchical view on these classes. The idea is that when a hierarchical
node structure is needed, it is constructed on the fly resulting in a
root node and all properties stored in the configuration as child nodes.
(So there is only a single layer hierarchy.)
But this is also experimental. I am not sure whether this is the way to
go or whether these configurations should be transformed into true
hierarchical configurations as is done by the
ConfigurationUtils.convertToHierarchical() method.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
