Re: *Parameterizable*

Mircea Toma wrote:
> Mauro Talevi wrote:
> 
>> I thought of Parameters as something that the container set and handled,
>> while Configurable as something more user oriented.
> 
> 
> Naah, it's the same thing.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> 
> I think a good API should be very clear about the contracts it enforces.
> The user will use it in the wrong way if it's possible.
> 
> 
>> They can actually be used together, so not necessarily mutually 
>> exclusive.
> 
> 
> "Configurable" is concerned just to configure an object instance. 
> "Parameterize" duplicates this concern. You don't have a violation of 
> SoC here, but a duplication.
> 
>> A conversion tool sounds like a good idea, we could add it to 
>> http://spice.sf.net/alchemist
> 
> 
> Good idea. I would love to have a tool that will transform a 
> Configuration object to Parameters, Properties, and Map objects.

But where would Parameters be defined then?
In order to convert to it must be defined as object somewhere,
and the only place I can thing of is the api.

Are you proposing to keep Parameters and chuck the interface only?

Cheers