> I haven't really thought much about this. If it can be done without breaking > the abstraction layers, then it would be a cleaner way to access specific > config properties, like "sync URL". On the other hand, the caller of > askPassword/savePassword might not know what the currently active > EvolutionSyncConfig and SyncSourceConfig is. Yes, it's the main concern of this issue. Currently I past the ConfigNode to these 2 functions because the caller(PasswordConfigProperty) has this kind of information for the configNode is pasted to it by its own caller. I think the most confusing thing to me is I don't know what kind of information will be needed except config.ini in the future. It's hard to figure it out.