Profile config strategy

[Cantor, Scott]

On 12/16/13, 8:34 PM, "Tom Zeller" <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:

>> So I think I'd rephrase my original question to whether we care about
>> exposing that code to extensions or if we can just leave the config API
>> internal to our implementation.
>
>Maybe you are saying by asking, but configuration seems like an
>implementation detail, so internal rather than public.

That was my leaning, but what I realized was that we have intended that
code running in, say, the attribute resolver, could in principle see the
configuration settings in effect for the profile that's running the
resolver.

I'm not sure I could give you a great example of why you'd want to do
that, but it's what we've intended to be possible. If we do that, the
actual configuration API for particular profiles is definitely public.

Other than that, I think we could move the configuration objects into
-impl and be pretty safe in not exposing them.

-- Scott