Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Nested Properties #2

Open
lviggiano opened this issue Jan 6, 2013 · 3 comments
Open

Nested Properties #2

lviggiano opened this issue Jan 6, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@lviggiano
Copy link
Collaborator

It could be interesting to think about some structure (i.e. nesting)

interface Foo extends Config {

    String fooProp();

    interface Bar extends Config {
        barProp();
    }

    @Key("bar");
    Bar bar();
}

So, to access barProp, the default key in the properties file would be foo.bar.barProp.
Method invocation will then be Foo.bar().barProp().

Not sure it is a good thing to have. Implementation may not be trivial. We can discuss it.

lviggiano pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2013
lviggiano pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 23, 2013
lviggiano pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2013
Not exactly same implementation as described in the issue,
but I also find this implementation having some sense.
lviggiano pushed a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2013
Not exactly same implementation as described in the issue,
but I also find this implementation having some sense.
lviggiano pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2014
More refactoring and cleanup
@eladidan
Copy link

Any special reason this branch is not merged? This seems like such a huge improvement on the API. Can I help in any way (I really love this project btw...)?

@lviggiano
Copy link
Collaborator Author

No special reason: need to understand and consider how this thing should work, and I was not fully convinced by the implementation

@eladidan
Copy link

It's a great feature. One that would help take this library from great to
greater.
Can't comment about the implementation. I just briefly looked at the diff
with master and saw that it has changed dramatically since the time of the
branch.

/Idan
On Oct 16, 2014 5:28 PM, "Luigi R. Viggiano" [email protected]
wrote:

No special reason: need to understand and consider how this thing should
work, and I was not fully convinced by the implementation


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants