Re: *Parameterizable*

Mircea Toma wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to understand why Parameterizable+Parameters were kept when the DNA 
> API was created? It looks to me that Parameters are just a particular case of 
> Configuration, which is a flat one. I can understand that Parameters object 
> is very handy but I don't see it as a framework contract. The proof is that 
> Configurable and Parameterizable are mutually excluded. 

I thought of Parameters as something that the container set and handled,
while Configurable as something more user oriented.

As you say the only difference is that one is hierarchical and the other 
flat.  But that can be useful, as you say, so what's wrong with leaving 
it in the framework and letting the user decide what he finds more 
appropriate?
They can actually be used together, so not necessarily mutually exclusive.

> Since the DNA is supossed to be a fresh start,  I think that just having a 
> conversion tool that would transform a Configuration instance to a Parameters 
> instance and removing the Parameterizable interface would be the correct 
> approach.

A conversion tool sounds like a good idea, we could add it to 
http://spice.sf.net/alchemist

Cheers