Hi,
Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> OK then, so don't be surprised if I start to commit. I will have to make
> me familiar with the experimental branch first though.
>
> Oliver Heger wrote:
>
>> I am fine with both points and also agree with the comments of Ralph.
>>
>> 1) sounds that the current implementation is buggy - or at least
>> inconsistent; so this should really be improved.
>
> I'll start with this.
OK, this topic now nearly finished. To clean it up, I have to ask about the
desired behavior though. Main goal was to support local lookups in a
SubsetConfiguration that have been registered in its parent
(CONFIGURATRION-375). Additionally it is now also possible to interpolate
in the subset also a configuration key of the parent (CONFIGURATION-376)
i.e. the behavior is now similar to a SubnodeConfiguration. Looking at the
tests for a BasicConfiguration it should also possible to register a lookup
local to the subset only, this is implemented with (CONFIGURATION-369).
Changes have been done on the c2 branch and merged back into trunk.
What we have now is:
================ %< ================
AbstractConfiguration config = new BaseConfiguration();
config.getInterpolator().registerLookup("parent", ...);
config.setProperty("top.foo", "bar");
config.setProperty("top.sub.test", "junit");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val1", "${test}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val2", "${top.foo}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val3", "${parent:x}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val4", "${child:y}");
SubsetConfiguration subConfig = config.subset("top.sub");
subConfig.getInterpolator().registerLookup("child", ...);
assertEquals("junit", subCongig.getKey("val1"));
assertEquals("bar", subCongig.getKey("val2"));
assertEquals("px", subCongig.getKey("val3"));
assertEquals("cy", subCongig.getKey("val4"));
================ %< ================
Supported asserts for val1, val3 and val4 are new. As suggested by Ralph I
keep an eye on SubnodeConfiguration also:
================ %< ================
HierarchicalConfiguration config = new HierarchicalConfiguration();
config.getInterpolator().registerLookup("parent", ...);
config.setProperty("top.foo", "bar");
config.setProperty("top.sub.test", "junit");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val1", "${test}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val2", "${top.foo}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val3", "${parent:x}");
config.setProperty("top.sub.val4", "${child:y}");
SubnodeConfiguration subConfig = config.subset("top.sub");
subConfig.getInterpolator().registerLookup("child", ...);
assertEquals("junit", subCongig.getKey("val1"));
assertEquals("bar", subCongig.getKey("val2"));
assertEquals("px", subCongig.getKey("val3"));
assertEquals("cy", subCongig.getKey("val4"));
================ %< ================
However, here asserts for val2 and val4 fail. Main issue is that a
SubnodeConfiguration does always use the parent configuration's
interpolater and ignores the local one. However, this seems by design.
Question is now, if I should fix this assuming the design has flaws? The
pro side is the equivalent behavior of subset and subnode then.
What do you think?
- Jörg
BTW: How are the JIRA issues handled? Should I simply resolve them? Normally
I would have expected that all resolved issues are closed when a release is
been made (with the appropriate fix version), but currently nearly all
issues for configuration have state "resolved" ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
