Re: *Parameterizable*

Mauro Talevi wrote:

> 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?
>
I might like to see the Parameterizable interface disappear, and a 
ParametersConfiguration class be created that allowed me to create a 
Configuration in a more Map or Properties-esque way.  I'm not sure I 
understand the reverse use case, which is to make a Parameters out of a 
Configuration?  Is this for convenience in the configure() method?

--
Ryan Hoegg