Hi folks,
looking at the current implementation, I am not convinced, that the current
behaviour is intentional. Look at the case:
defaults.client.port=8000
client.A.dir=${java.io.tmpdir}
client.A.url=http://client:${port}
having:
CompositeConfiguration globalConfig = new CompositeConfiguration();
globalConfig.addConfiguration(ConfigurationConverter.getConfiguration(System.getProperties()));
globalConfig.addConfiguration(readConfigWithPropertiesFromAbove);
one might assume, that is is save to do:
CompositeConfiguration clientConfig = new CompositeConfiguration();
clientConfig.addConfiguration(globalConfig.subset("client.A"));
clientConfig.addConfiguration(globalConfig.subset("defaults.client"));
Now these statements are true:
assertEquals("http://client:8000";, clientConfig.getString("url"));
assertEquals(8000, clientConfig.getInteger("port"));
assertEquals("${java.io.tmpdir}", clientConfig.getString("dir"));
What's the problem?
As you can see, the administrator configuring the properties has to know in
what scope the interpolation will be done by the application implementation,
the implementation itself rely on the assembled subset though. The
interpolation of the system property would have worked only, if another
Configuration with system properties have been added to the client
configuration.
So should the SubsetConfiguration use its parent configuration as fallback for
the interpolation? Then both cases can be handled.
- J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
