Ralph Goers schrieb:
On Dec 15, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
Ralph Goers schrieb:
On Dec 13, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
I don't think any dummy implementations are needed. If
BaseConfiguration extended AbstractHierarchicalConfiguration instead
of AbstractFlatConfiguration it would need to override createNode to
disallow node creation and register the FlatNodeHandler . Other than
that what else would need to be done?
So you mean that AbstractFlatConfiguration is not needed as a base
class for non-hierarchical configurations?
Yes, Any code in it that is needed could move to BaseConfiguration.
Its main functionality is to provide support for creating the tree of
configuration nodes on demand and keep it up-to-date. Derived classes
can still operate on their native data structures, e.g. maps.
If you extend AbstractHierarchicalConfiguration directly, wouldn't you
have to implement the handling of nodes yourself?
I don't think so. The main reason is that a Flat configuration shouldn't
be able to have any child nodes so all that is needed is making sure
they can't be created.
But anyway, its a while since I deeply looked into these things. If
you want to try something out, don't hesitate!
OK. I haven't delved too deeply in this. All I've been doing really is
working on trunk and then trying to figure out how to port it to the
branch.
Ralph
Just another point: There are other flat configuration implementations
that do not extend BaseConfiguration, e.g. the web configurations or
DatabaseConfiguration. AbstractFlagConfiguration was intended to serve
as a common base class for all of these.
Oliver
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
