FWIW, I agree. I must have missed the earlier discussion as well. I
definitely prefer having an interface that can be used whenever a
specific implementation is not required.
Michiel Kalkman wrote:
I don't know the discussion, so the only thing I can say right now, is
that I don't like the na
I don't know the discussion, so the only thing I can say right now, is
that I don't like the names ... Or I just don't understand why it is
called XXXSource, which in my thoughts refers to the resource the
configuration is read from.
How about Configuration for the interface and something like
Bas
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project commons-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community
integration.
Thi
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
