<p><br>
Am 18.07.2012 11:32 schrieb "Hardy Ferentschik" <<a href="mailto:hardy@hibernate.org">hardy@hibernate.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Jul 17, 2012, at 10:42 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:<br>
><br>
> >> Initially I thought about using DefaultConfiguration as an alternative name, but as Emmanuel pointed out in an earlier email it clashes to a certain degree with the programmatic Configuration interface.<br>
> ><br>
> > But does it really clash? IMO Configuration provides a unified way for<br>
> > accessing the effective configuration. It allows to change the<br>
> > configuration in a programmatic way but it could also provide a handle<br>
> > to the default configuration from validation.xml via<br>
> > getDefaultConfiguration().<br>
> ><br>
> > I see there is a clash with getDefaultMessageInterpolator() etc,<br>
> > though (which returns the default implementations as demanded by the<br>
> > spec.), so maybe the method returning the user provided default<br>
> > configuration should be named getExternalDefaultConfiguration(),<br>
> > getBootstrapDefaultConfiguration() or similar.<br>
><br>
> That's exactly the clash I am talking about. If we call it _DefaultConfiguration_ and just call the getter<br>
> Configuration#getDefaultConfiguration we have for example Configuration#getDefaultMessageInterpolator, but<br>
> also Configuration#getDefaultConfiguration()#getMessageInterpolatorClassName. IMO that can be misleading.</p>
<p>I see, yes that's definitely sub-optimal.</p>
<p>><br>
> One way to avoid this would be to call the accessor #getExternalDefaultConfiguration() or #getBootstrapDefaultConfiguration()<br>
> as you suggest, but then I rather call it BootstrapConfiguration to begin with.<br>
></p>
<p>Works both for me.</p>
<p>> I chose XMLConfiguration, because I think it is ok to limit this method to validation.xml. If we really want to keep<br>
> "doors open" I could imagine renaming to BootstrapConfiguration.</p>
<p>+1 Personally, for me the “naming things by semantics“ argument is even more important than leaving doors open. We would just get the latter for free by following the former.</p>
<p>><br>
> What do others think?</p>
<p>Yepp, please speak up guys :) Let's bring this to an end.</p>
<p>><br>
> --Hardy</p>
<p>--Gunnar<br></p>
<p>> _______________________________________________<br>
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org">beanvalidation-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev</a><br>
</p>