On Jun 12, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Gunnar Morling wrote:
Any preferences or other suggestions?
To take up my original questions again w/ my thoughts around it
* How do I interpret "typically the "META-INF/validation.xml file" -
typically implies an alternative. Is there is one how do I
differentiate between these alternatives? Shouldn't the docs read "Return
information stored in META-INF/validation.xml"?
Apparently the "typically" comes from the idea that the configuration source
could be different one (e.g. property file) for some
providers. IMO this is a provider specific feature. The specification uses validation.xml
for these bootstrap parameters and that's
what the specification should be concerned about. How can I guarantee portable
applications if Configuration#getConfigurationSource
does not returns the same values between different providers?
* What do I return if there is no validation.xml? null? Or the class names of the
implementations default implementations?
I think there should be an ConfigurationSource (or whatever we are going to call it)
instance returned, but the getters return null.
* Last but not least, why ConfigurationSource? If I look at the class I see configuration
parameters so why not call this
(ValidationXml)ConfigurationParamters or (ValidationXml)BootstrapParameters.
"Source" implies for me that I can get information about
how the configuration was provided, e.g. XML vs programmatic.
BootstrapConfiguration, DefaultConfiguration, ValidationXmlConfiguration (assuming that we
are really only dealing w/ validation.xml)
--Hardy