Yeah, I've been fixing a few additional issues in FileInstall in order to be able to release it. I'll do it asap.
2013/12/9 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > Guillaume, > > I've noticed that Karaf 3.0 is getting close. Wouldn't it be good if it > could include a new FileInstall release? I think FileInstall has been > greatly improved (at least for my purposes) thanks to the modifications > you've done recently. > > /Bengt > > > 2013/12/5 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > > > Just tested - works perfectly! > > > > Thanks a lot. When do you think the next release of FileInstall will take > > place? > > > > /Bengt > > > > > > 2013/12/5 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > > > >> OK - I'll test it (possibly tomorrow). > >> > >> /Bengt > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/5 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > >> > >>> Great. I've just committed a fix for FELIX-4339 > >>> > >>> > >>> 2013/12/5 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > >>> > Yes Guillaume - I agree with the behaviour in your test. All the > >>> properties > >>> > should have the same number of backslashes. > >>> > > >>> > /Bengt > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > 2013/12/5 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > >>> > > >>> > > Yeah, that's clearly FELIX-4339. > >>> > > I have a fix which makes the following test to succeed: > >>> > > > >>> > > public void testMultipleEscapes() > >>> > > { > >>> > > LinkedHashMap<String, String> map1 = new > >>> LinkedHashMap<String, > >>> > > String>(); > >>> > > map1.put("a", "$\\\\{var}"); > >>> > > map1.put("abc", "${ab}c"); > >>> > > map1.put("ab", "${a}b"); > >>> > > InterpolationHelper.performSubstitution(map1); > >>> > > > >>> > > assertEquals("$\\{var}", map1.get("a")); > >>> > > assertEquals("$\\{var}b", map1.get("ab")); > >>> > > assertEquals("$\\{var}bc", map1.get("abc")); > >>> > > } > >>> > > > >>> > > Do we agree that's the behavior we should look for ? > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > 2013/12/5 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >>> > > > I've now tested FileInstall (and Utils) from trunk. Most things > >>> seem to > >>> > > > have been fixed now. In particular: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > - I haven't seen any "false" write back of configuration changes. > >>> > > > - The variables are not evaluated more than once which makes > things > >>> > much > >>> > > > more deterministic > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I've found one remaining issue though. The unescaping is still > not > >>> > > > deterministic. Every time the value of a variable is needed, it > is > >>> > > > unescaped. I've tested this in Karaf 2.3.3 by putting a file > called > >>> > > > test.cfg in the etc directory. I then issue the following command > >>> from > >>> > > the > >>> > > > Karaf console to see how my configuration is evaluated: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > config:list "(service.pid=test)" > >>> > > > > >>> > > > What I have found is that the following contents of test.cfg: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = $\\{var} > >>> > > > ab = ${a}b > >>> > > > abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > > >>> > > > evaluates to: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = ${var} > >>> > > > ab = ${var}b > >>> > > > abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > > >>> > > > This is correct (according to me). Note that testing it this way > I > >>> need > >>> > > two > >>> > > > backslash characters instead of one as you used Guillaume. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > But, assume that I actually want my configuration to include a > >>> > backslash, > >>> > > > like this: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = $\\\\{var} > >>> > > > ab = ${a}b > >>> > > > abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > > >>> > > > This evaluates to: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = $\{var} > >>> > > > ab = ${var}b > >>> > > > abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Here the variable "a" is OK. But when ${a} is used in the other > >>> > > variables, > >>> > > > the backslash is unescaped and lost. This can be seen even more > >>> clearly > >>> > > if > >>> > > > you add two more backslashes. Like this: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = $\\\\\\\\{var} > >>> > > > ab = ${a}b > >>> > > > abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > > >>> > > > We then get: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > a = $\\{var} > >>> > > > ab = $\{var}b > >>> > > > abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thus, every time the variable "a" is evaluated, a backslash is > >>> removed. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > It would be good if this could be fixed as well so that > backslashes > >>> > could > >>> > > > be part of the configuration in a deterministic way. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Note that the problematic configuration that I had no workaround > >>> for > >>> > now > >>> > > > works fine. If I put this in the configuration file: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > mydir=C:/temp > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > timestampedfile=$\\{file:onlyname\\}-$\\{date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS\\}.$\\{file:ext\\} > >>> > > > move=${mydir}/archive/$\\{date:now:yyyyMMdd\\}/${timestampedfile} > >>> > > > moveFailed=${mydir}/failed/${timestampedfile} > >>> > > > fromUri=file:${mydir}?move=${move}&moveFailed=${moveFailed} > >>> > > > > >>> > > > It is evaluated to: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > mydir = C:/temp > >>> > > > timestampedfile = > >>> > > > ${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext} > >>> > > > move = > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > C:/temp/archive/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext} > >>> > > > moveFailed = > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > C:/temp/failed/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext} > >>> > > > fromUri = > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > file:C:/temp?move=C:/temp/archive/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext}&moveFailed=C:/temp/failed/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext} > >>> > > > > >>> > > > which is what I want. Note that I now only need two backslashes > to > >>> make > >>> > > > this work. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > But, if I wanted some part of my configuration to actually > contain > >>> a > >>> > > > backslash then I would run into trouble. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > /Bengt > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > 2013/12/4 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I'll give it a shot. > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > /Bengt > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > 2013/12/4 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > >> Not on the karaf side, but if you build felix utils, file > >>> install, > >>> > and > >>> > > > >> change the karaf version to refer to those new ones and > >>> rebuild, it > >>> > > > should > >>> > > > >> be ok. > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> 2013/12/4 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > Will definitely test this out. Thanks a lot. > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > I assume everything is checked in? > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > Den 4 dec 2013 16:09 skrev "Guillaume Nodet" < > >>> [email protected]>: > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > Both are parts of the game. > >>> > > > >> > > The order actually was significant as shown by the test > case > >>> > > mainly > >>> > > > >> > because > >>> > > > >> > > of the order difference between the java util Properties > >>> object > >>> > > and > >>> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > felix Properties object. The first one is relies on a > >>> Hashtable > >>> > > > while > >>> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > second relies on a LinkedHashMap. > >>> > > > >> > > This is significant because of the way the substitution > was > >>> > done. > >>> > > > >> > > if you start from a = $\{var}, ab = ${a}b, abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > you had the following steps: > >>> > > > >> > > a = $\{var}, ab = ${a}b, abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > a = $\{var}, ab = ${var}b, abc = ${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > a = $\{var}, ab = ${var}b, abc = bc > >>> > > > >> > > The reason is that substitution were done using already > >>> > > substituted > >>> > > > >> > > variables, so when computing ${ab}c, it was using > >>> > > > >> > > ${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > bc > >>> > > > >> > > instead of > >>> > > > >> > > ${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > ${a}bc > >>> > > > >> > > $\{var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > So the problem wan't really the order of the values, but > the > >>> > fact > >>> > > > that > >>> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > substitution was done using already substituted values, > >>> which > >>> > then > >>> > > > >> made > >>> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > order significant. > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > Note that the result is now (and irrespective of the order > >>> of > >>> > the > >>> > > > >> lines): > >>> > > > >> > > a = ${var}, ab = ${var}b, abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > So I think the escaping is now more deterministic. Please > >>> give > >>> > it > >>> > > > >> some > >>> > > > >> > > testing and let me know if you still have problems in this > >>> area. > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > 2013/12/4 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > BTW. I did some experimenting with declaring the > >>> properties in > >>> > > > >> > different > >>> > > > >> > > > order in the configuration file. It did not seem to > >>> matter. I > >>> > > was > >>> > > > >> under > >>> > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > impression that the recursive variable substitution is > >>> what > >>> > > makes > >>> > > > it > >>> > > > >> > > > non-deterministic. > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > If a property has been evaluated already it should not > be > >>> > > > evaluated > >>> > > > >> > again > >>> > > > >> > > > because another layer of the escape characters will then > >>> be > >>> > > > removed. > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > 2013/12/4 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > OK. > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > 2013/12/4 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Unfortunately, it does not seem to be sufficient, I'm > >>> > > > >> investigating > >>> > > > >> > > > >> further > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> 2013/12/4 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > I noticed that you seem to have fixed the issues I > >>> had > >>> > > > reported > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Guillaume. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks a lot! Looking forward to the next release. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > 2013/12/2 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Guillaume! > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > 2013/12/2 Guillaume Nodet < > [email protected] > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> I'll try to have a look at those today or > >>> tomorrow. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> 2013/12/2 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > I've replaced FELIX-4332 with FELIX-4338 and > >>> > > FELIX-4339. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > I have attached a patch for FELIX-4338 and > hope > >>> that > >>> > > > >> someone > >>> > > > >> > > can > >>> > > > >> > > > >> have > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > a > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > look at it and possibly commit it. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > FELIX-4339 is trickier but I would appreciate > a > >>> > > > discussion > >>> > > > >> > > about > >>> > > > >> > > > >> how > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> this > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > should be handled. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > 2013/11/29 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > I've tested more with the proposed change in > >>> order > >>> > > to > >>> > > > >> stop > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> FileInstall to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > incorrectly change the contents of the > >>> > configuration > >>> > > > >> file > >>> > > > >> > > > >> (problem > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > b) > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > from > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > my previous post). It seems to work fine. I > >>> would > >>> > > > really > >>> > > > >> > like > >>> > > > >> > > > >> that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> be > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > fixed. Would you like me to create a patch > >>> > atttached > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > JIRA? > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > Problem a) is probably not trivial to fix. > >>> I've > >>> > > > >> > experimented > >>> > > > >> > > a > >>> > > > >> > > > >> lot > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > and > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > it's very hard for me to foresee how many > >>> escape > >>> > > > >> > characters I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> need > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > in > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > different circumstances. One real life > >>> example for > >>> > > me > >>> > > > is > >>> > > > >> > how > >>> > > > >> > > I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> configure > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > an > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > integration service that uses a Camel route > >>> > > > underneath. > >>> > > > >> If > >>> > > > >> > I > >>> > > > >> > > > put > >>> > > > >> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > followiing contents in a test.cfg file: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > *mydir=C:/temp* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > *timestampedfile=$\\\\{file:onlyname\\\\}-$\\\\{date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS\\\\}.$\\\\{file:ext\\\\}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> *move=${mydir}/archive/$\\{date:now:yyyyMMdd\\}/${timestampedfile}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> *moveFailed=${mydir}/failed/${timestampedfile}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > *fromUri=file:${mydir}?move=${move}&moveFailed=${moveFailed}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > And execute the following command: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > *config:list "(service.pid=test)"* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > I get the following output: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> *----------------------------------------------------------------* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > *Pid: test* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > *BundleLocation: null* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > *Properties:* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * moveFailed = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > C:/temp/failed/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * mydir = C:/temp* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * timestampedfile = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > $\{file:onlyname\}-$\{date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS\}.$\{file:ext\}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * service.pid = test* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * fromUri = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> file:C:/temp?move=C:/temp/archive//-.&moveFailed=C:/temp/failed/-.* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * move = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > C:/temp/archive/${date:now:yyyyMMdd}/${file:onlyname}-${date:now:yyyyMMddHHmmssSSS}.${file:ext}* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > * felix.fileinstall.filename = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> file:/C:/dev/karaf/connect/common/etc/test.cfg* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > Thus, the variables "move" and "moveFailed" > >>> looks > >>> > > the > >>> > > > >> way I > >>> > > > >> > > > want > >>> > > > >> > > > >> but > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > final variable "fromUri" is messed up > because > >>> of > >>> > an > >>> > > > >> extra > >>> > > > >> > > > >> variable > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > substitution. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > I haven't managed to come up with any number > >>> of > >>> > > > >> backslashes > >>> > > > >> > > > that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > will > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > produce the correct result for me. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > The only workaround I have right now is to > >>> not use > >>> > > > >> > variables > >>> > > > >> > > at > >>> > > > >> > > > >> all. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> It > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > does, however, make the configuration files > >>> > > extremely > >>> > > > >> > verbose > >>> > > > >> > > > and > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > it's > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > easy > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > to introduce errors that way. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > Presently, variable substitution is very > >>> > > unpredictable > >>> > > > >> > since > >>> > > > >> > > > it's > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> being > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > done in a recursive way. I would prefer > doing > >>> it > >>> > in > >>> > > an > >>> > > > >> > > > iterative > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> manner > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > make it predictable. E g "${a}" should > always > >>> > > evaluate > >>> > > > >> to > >>> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> same > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> value > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > no > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > matter where in the configuration file it is > >>> > > > referenced. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > 2013/11/28 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected] > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> I've investigated this a bit more. There > are > >>> > > actually > >>> > > > >> two > >>> > > > >> > > > >> different > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> problems: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> a) The number of escape characters I need > >>> depends > >>> > > on > >>> > > > >> from > >>> > > > >> > > > where > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> reference the variable. For every > >>> indirection I > >>> > > need > >>> > > > to > >>> > > > >> > > double > >>> > > > >> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > number > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> of backslashes. This also means that all > >>> uses of > >>> > a > >>> > > > >> > variable > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> containing > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> escape characters must be used from the > same > >>> > level > >>> > > of > >>> > > > >> > > > >> indirection. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > A > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> bit > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> complicated but it's due to the fact that > all > >>> > > > variables > >>> > > > >> > are > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > evaluated > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> dynamically. This means that unescaping can > >>> occur > >>> > > > >> several > >>> > > > >> > > > times. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> b) FileInstall incorrectly thinks that a > >>> > > > configuration > >>> > > > >> > > > property > >>> > > > >> > > > >> is > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> changed and therefore overwrites the > property > >>> > with > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > evaluated > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> value. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> I think I've found the reason (and > possibly a > >>> > > > >> solution) to > >>> > > > >> > > b). > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> In the ConfigInstaller.setConfig() method > the > >>> > > > >> properties > >>> > > > >> > are > >>> > > > >> > > > >> read > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> from a > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> configuration file and propagated as a > >>> > > configuration. > >>> > > > >> Here > >>> > > > >> > > is > >>> > > > >> > > > an > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> excerpt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> from that method: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * final Properties p = new > >>> > > > >> Properties();* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * in.mark(1);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * boolean isXml = in.read() > == > >>> > '<';* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * in.reset();* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * if (isXml) {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * p.loadFromXML(in);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * } else {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * p.load(in);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * }* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * > >>> > > > >> > > InterpolationHelper.performSubstitution((Map) > >>> > > > >> > > > >> p, > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> context);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * ht.putAll(p);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> Note that the file is read using Java's > >>> standard > >>> > > > >> > Properties > >>> > > > >> > > > >> class. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> The > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> unescaping is also done by that class. > Then, > >>> at > >>> > the > >>> > > > >> end, > >>> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > variable > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> substitution is done as a separate call. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> Then look at the > >>> > > ConfigInstaller.configurationEvent() > >>> > > > >> > > method: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * if (configurationEvent.getType() > == > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> ConfigurationEvent.CM_UPDATED)* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * try* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * Configuration config = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> getConfigurationAdmin().getConfiguration(* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > configurationEvent.getPid(),* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> configurationEvent.getFactoryPid());* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * Dictionary dict = > >>> > > > >> > config.getProperties();* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * String fileName = (String) > >>> > > dict.get( > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> DirectoryWatcher.FILENAME );* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * File file = fileName != > >>> null ? > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> fromConfigKey(fileName) > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > : > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> null;* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * if( file != null && > >>> > file.isFile() > >>> > > > ) > >>> > > > >> {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * if( fileName.endsWith( > >>> > ".cfg" > >>> > > ) > >>> > > > )* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * {* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> * > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> props = new > >>> > > > >> org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties( > >>> > > > >> > > > file, > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> context > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > );* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> Note that now the configuration file is > read > >>> > using > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties > >>> > class. > >>> > > > It > >>> > > > >> > turns > >>> > > > >> > > > out > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > they > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> don't produce identical results. I haven't > >>> > > > investigated > >>> > > > >> > > > exactly > >>> > > > >> > > > >> how > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> they > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> differ but they do. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> A simple test: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> 1. Create a configuration file with the > >>> following > >>> > > > >> content: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> a=$\\\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> ab=${a}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> abc=${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> 2. Add the following line at the end: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> d=foo > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> 3. FileInstall will now incorrectly change > >>> the > >>> > > > >> contents of > >>> > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> configuration file to: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> a=$\\\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> ab=${a}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> d=foo > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> Now if I change the > >>> ConfigInstaller.setConfig() > >>> > > > method > >>> > > > >> to > >>> > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> following: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> *org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties p = > >>> > > new > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties( f, > >>> > > > >> context > >>> > > > >> > );* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> *InterpolationHelper.performSubstitution((Map) p, > >>> > > > >> > context);* > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> Then FileInstall will not incorrectly > change > >>> the > >>> > > > >> contents > >>> > > > >> > of > >>> > > > >> > > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> configuration file. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> I propose to do this change in order to > solve > >>> > > problem > >>> > > > >> b) > >>> > > > >> > > > above. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> appreciate if you have any thoughts on > this. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> I realize that problem a) is trickier due > to > >>> the > >>> > > > >> dynamic > >>> > > > >> > > > nature > >>> > > > >> > > > >> of > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> variable substitution. I haven't yet > >>> determined > >>> > > how I > >>> > > > >> > think > >>> > > > >> > > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> escape > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> characters should be handled but the > current > >>> > > > situation > >>> > > > >> is > >>> > > > >> > > not > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > ideal. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> 2013/11/28 Bengt Rodehav < > [email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> JIRA created: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4332 > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> 2013/11/28 Bengt Rodehav < > [email protected] > >>> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> I've come up with easily reproducable > >>> errors > >>> > > using > >>> > > > >> Karaf > >>> > > > >> > > > >> 2.3.3: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> - Install a fresh Karaf 2.3.3 > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> - Add the following line to > >>> > > etc/custom.properties: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> felix.fileinstall.enableConfigSave = > true > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Create a file etc/test.cfg with the > >>> following > >>> > > > >> contents: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a=$\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> ab=${a}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> abc=${ab}c > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> I expect this to be evaluated to: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a=$\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> ab=$\{var}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> abc=$\{var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> But if I execute the Karaf command: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> config:list "(service.pid=test)" > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> I get: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Pid: test > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> BundleLocation: null > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Properties: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> service.pid = test > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a = ${var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> abc = bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> felix.fileinstall.filename = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > file:/C:/dev/Karaf/apache-karaf-2.3.3/etc/test.cfg > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> ab = b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> My interpretation of this is that the > >>> variable > >>> > > "a" > >>> > > > >> has > >>> > > > >> > > been > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> correctly > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> evaluated. But, when evalutating the > >>> variable > >>> > > "ab" > >>> > > > it > >>> > > > >> > > seems > >>> > > > >> > > > >> that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> variable "a" is evaluated again despite > the > >>> > fact > >>> > > > >> that it > >>> > > > >> > > has > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> already > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > been > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> evaluated. FileInstall now looks for the > >>> value > >>> > > of a > >>> > > > >> > > variable > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > called > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > "var" > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> which evalutes to an empty string because > >>> there > >>> > > is > >>> > > > no > >>> > > > >> > such > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> variable. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> The variable "abc" consequently evaluates > >>> to > >>> > "bc" > >>> > > > >> since > >>> > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> variable > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> "ab" has been evaluated to "b". > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> To make it even worse, now change the > >>> first row > >>> > > in > >>> > > > >> > > test.cfg > >>> > > > >> > > > >> to: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a=$\\\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> We now get: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Pid: test > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> BundleLocation: null > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Properties: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> service.pid = test > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a = $\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> felix.fileinstall.filename = > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > file:/C:/dev/Karaf/apache-karaf-2.3.3/etc/test.cfg > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> ab = ${var}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> Thus we get the same phenomenom. The > >>> variable > >>> > "a" > >>> > > > is > >>> > > > >> > > > evaluated > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> differently if it is evaluated on its own > >>> or as > >>> > > > part > >>> > > > >> of > >>> > > > >> > > > >> another > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > expression. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> But, due to having configured FileInstall > >>> to > >>> > > write > >>> > > > >> back > >>> > > > >> > > > >> changes, > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> contents of the test.cfg is now changed > by > >>> > > > >> FileInstall > >>> > > > >> > > > despite > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > fact > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> that the configuration has not changed at > >>> all. > >>> > > The > >>> > > > >> > > contents > >>> > > > >> > > > of > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > test.cfg is > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> now: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> a=$\\\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> ab=${a}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> abc = ${var}bc > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> The "abc" variable has been altered. > >>> > FileInstall > >>> > > > has > >>> > > > >> > > > >> incorrectly > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> determined that its value has changed. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> This is clearly a bug. I will create a > >>> JIRA. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> 2013/11/26 Bengt Rodehav < > >>> [email protected]> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> I'm using Apache Karaf 2.3.3 which comes > >>> with > >>> > > > >> > FileInstall > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > 3.2.6. I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> have set the > >>> > felix.fileinstall.enableConfigSave > >>> > > > >> > property > >>> > > > >> > > to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> true > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> in > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > order > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> to have FileInstall write back > >>> configuration > >>> > > > >> changes to > >>> > > > >> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > file. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > Normally > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> all configuration changes are done by > >>> editing > >>> > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> configuration > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> file > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > but > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> there is one property that I change > >>> > > > programmatically > >>> > > > >> > > using > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > ConfigAdmin (an > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> "enable" property to start/stop my > >>> service). I > >>> > > am > >>> > > > >> > > dependent > >>> > > > >> > > > >> on > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> property being persisted in the > >>> configuration > >>> > > file > >>> > > > >> > which > >>> > > > >> > > is > >>> > > > >> > > > >> why > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > set the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> enableConfigSave property to true. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> When configuring FileInstall to write > back > >>> > > > >> > configuration > >>> > > > >> > > > >> changes > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> the configuration file, it is important > >>> that > >>> > > > >> variables > >>> > > > >> > > are > >>> > > > >> > > > >> not > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > substituted > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> for the evaluated value. This normally > >>> works > >>> > > since > >>> > > > >> > > > >> FileInstall > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > evalutates > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> the property in the configuration file > and > >>> > > > compares > >>> > > > >> it > >>> > > > >> > > with > >>> > > > >> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> configuration admin's value. If they are > >>> the > >>> > > same, > >>> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > value > >>> > > > >> > > > >> in > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> configuration file is kept unchanged. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> However, when using the escape character > >>> this > >>> > is > >>> > > > >> > broken. > >>> > > > >> > > In > >>> > > > >> > > > >> my > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> case > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> I'm using Apache Camel underneath. When > >>> > > > configuring > >>> > > > >> > > routes > >>> > > > >> > > > >> via > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > config > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> admin, I sometimes need to set a value > to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > "${expression-to-be-evaluated-by-camel}". > >>> I > >>> > > > >> therefore > >>> > > > >> > > > escape > >>> > > > >> > > > >> the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> "{" > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > and > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> "}" to stop FileInstall from trying to > >>> > evaluate > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > >> > > > >> expression. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Like > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > this: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > $\\{expression-to-be-evaluated-by-camel\\} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> This also normally works but not when I > >>> have > >>> > an > >>> > > > >> > > > indirection. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> E g > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> when > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> specifying the following: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> a=$\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> ab=${a}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> FileInstall will change the > configuration > >>> file > >>> > > to: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> a=$\\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> ab = ${var}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> Note that the variable "ab" has now been > >>> > > expanded > >>> > > > >> and > >>> > > > >> > > > written > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> back to > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> the configuration file even if neither > of > >>> the > >>> > > > >> variables > >>> > > > >> > > "a" > >>> > > > >> > > > >> and > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> "ab" > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > have > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> been changed. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> I think this is because FileInstall does > >>> the > >>> > > > >> following: > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> 1. Calculates the value of "a" to > "$\{var} > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> 2. Calculates the value of "b" to > "${var}b > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> Note that every evaluation will perform > >>> > > > >> "unescaping". > >>> > > > >> > > This > >>> > > > >> > > > >> means > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> that > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> an extra "unescaping" will be done for > >>> every > >>> > > > >> > indirection > >>> > > > >> > > > >> which > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> fools > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> FileInstall into thinking that the > >>> property > >>> > has > >>> > > > been > >>> > > > >> > > > changed. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> I'm not exactly sure how this should be > >>> fixed > >>> > in > >>> > > > >> > > > FileInstall. > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > One > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > idea > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> is to never "unescape" already evaluated > >>> > > > variables. > >>> > > > >> > > > Actually > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> think > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > this > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> is probably what would fix this... > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> Does anybody have any ideas about this? > >>> > Should I > >>> > > > >> > create a > >>> > > > >> > > > >> JIRA? > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> /Bengt > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> -- > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> ----------------------- > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Guillaume Nodet > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> ------------------------ > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Red Hat, Open Source Integration > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Email: [email protected] > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Web: http://fusesource.com > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
