Is it acceptable for you to code each server operation like in the following?
void op1(String username, ...)
{
String userScope = getConfigurationScopeForUser(username);
String language = cfg.lookupString(userScope, "language");
int fontSize = cfg.lookupInt(userScope, "font_size");
... // business logic expressed in terms of language and fontSize
}
(The above pseudocode assumes the name of a user is passed as a parameter, but you might pass it via another mechanism, for example, thread-local storage.)
If the above is acceptable, then Config4* could satisfy your requirements. Using Config4*, the getConfigurationScopeForUser() method used in the above pseudocode can be implemented as follows (this assumes cfg is a Configuration object that has been previously initialized by parsing a configuration file):
String getConfigurationScopeForUser(String username)
{
if (cfg.type("user", username) == Configuration.CFG_SCOPE) {
return Configuration.mergeNames("user", username);
} else {
return "user.default";
}
}
Here is a sample configuration file to work with the above. Most users get their configuration from the "user.default" scope, but Mary and John have their own overrides of some of those default values:
user.default {
language = "English";
font_size = "12";
# ... many other configuration settings
}
user.John {
@copyFrom "user.default";
language = "Klingon"; # override a default value
}
user.Mary {
@copyFrom "user.default";
font_size = "18"; # override a default value
}
If the above sounds like it might meet your needs, then I suggest you read Chapters 2 and 3 of the "Getting Started Guide" to get a good-enough understanding of the Config4* syntax and API to be able to confirm/refute the suitability of Config4* for your needs. You can find that documentation on the Config4* website.
Disclaimer: I am the maintainer of Config4*.
Edit: I am providing more details in response to comments by bacar.
I have not put Config4* in a Maven repository. However, it is trivial to build Config4* with its bundled Ant build file, because Config4* does not have any dependencies on third-party libraries.
Another approach for using Config4* in a server application (prompted by a comment by bacar) with Config4* is follows...
Implement each server operation like in the following pseudo-code:
void op1(String username, ...)
{
Configuration cfg = getConfigurationForUser(username);
String language = cfg.lookupString("settings", "language");
int fontSize = cfg.lookupInt("settings", "font_size");
... // business logic expressed in terms of language and fontSize
}
The getConfigurationForUser() method used above can be implemented as shown in the following pseudocode:
HashMap<String,Configuration> map = new HashMap<String,Configuration>();
synchronized String getConfigurationForUser(String username)
{
Configuration cfg = map.get(username);
if (cfg == null) {
// Create a config object tailored for the user & add to the map
cfg = Configuration.create();
cfg.insertString("", "user", username); // in global scope
cfg.parse("/path/to/file.cfg");
map.put(username, cfg);
}
return cfg;
}
Here is a sample configuration file to work with the above.
user ?= ""; // will be set via insertString()
settings {
@if (user @in ["John", "Sam", "Jane"]) {
language = "Klingon";
} @else {
language = "English";
}
@if (user == "Mary") {
font_size = "12";
} @else {
font_size = "10";
}
... # many other configuration settings
}
The main comments I have on the two approaches are as follows:
The first approach (one Configuration object that contains lots of variables and scopes) is likely to use slightly less memory than the second approach (many Configuration objects, each with a small number of variables). But my guess is that the memory usage of either approach will be measured in KB or tens of KB, and this will be insignificant compared to the overall memory footprint of your server application.
I prefer the first approach because a single Configuration object is initialized just once, and then it is accessed via read-only lookup()-style operations. This means you don't have to worry about synchronizing access to the Configuration object, even if your server application is multi-threaded. In contrast, the second approach requires you to synchronize access to the HashMap if your server application is multi-threaded.
The overhead of a lookup()-style operation is in the order of, say, nanoseconds or microseconds, while the overhead of parsing a configuration file is in the order of, say, milliseconds or tens of milliseconds (depending on the size of the file). The first approach performs that relatively expensive parsing of a configuration file only once, and that is done in the initialization of the application. In contrast, the second approach performs that relatively expensive parsing of a configuration file "N" times (once for each of "N" users), and that repeated expense occurs while the server is processing requests from clients. That performance hit may or may not be an issue for your application.
I think ease of use is more important than ease of implementation. So, if you feel that the second approach will make it easier to maintain the configuration file, then I suggest you use that approach.
In the second approach, you may wonder why I put most of the variables in a named scope (settings) rather than in the global scope along with the "injected" user variable. I did that for a reason that is outside the scope of your question: separating the "injected" variables from the application-visible variables makes it easier to perform schema validation on the application-visible variables.
