Re: [DISCUSSION] Replace the Config class instance with the tree-based framework

> I kinda feel this should be separated as we can and do do this today but the reason we have not grouped is not due to the framework we use but more “what makes sense to group” I think that's more or less correct. The critical path thing here is getting to consensus (in CASSANDRA-17292

Re: [DISCUSSION] Replace the Config class instance with the tree-based framework

Just went over the doc and I don’t see a real argument for why we want to switch “frameworks”… I think this should be fleshed out more; what is it we are actually solving for? Also, I “think” its trying to propose we switch from a mostly flat yaml to a nested structure… I kinda feel this should