Not having any specific opinion here but just for an example. Maven allows merging of config [1] but that requires parent config to declare/allow the child to merge there config. So merging "intention" is explicitly mentioned.
So if we plan to support this sometime later (with a big if!) then probably we can have such meta config settings to express this merge intention. Chetan Mehrotra [1] http://blog.sonatype.com/2011/01/maven-how-to-merging-plugin-configuration-in-complex-projects/ On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> Properties should not be merged, as that will produce undesirable side >> effects, however some things need to be merged. >> >> Having attempted to write documentation I found it easiest to describe in >> terms of json documents. >> Using the examples in >> https://gist.github.com/ieb/460504e79c861cb980f4f0154210a869 >> >> given 2 configs from different locations >> >> Location A >> >> { >> "socialmedia" : { >> "youtube" : { >> "enabled" : false, >> "url" : "https://youtube.com"; >> }, >> "facebook" : { >> "enabled" : false, >> "apiusage" : false, >> "url" : "https://youtube.com"; >> }, >> >> Location B >> >> { >> "socialmedia" : { >> "facebook" : { >> "enabled" : true, >> "url" : "https://facebook.com"; >> } >> } >> } >> >> >> The result of A then B should be >> >> { >> "socialmedia" : { >> "youtube" : { >> "enabled" : false, >> "url" : "https://youtube.com"; >> }, >> "facebook" : { >> "enabled" : true, >> "url" : "https://facebook.com"; >> } >> } >> } >> >> >> ie Objects are merged but properties are not. socialmedia.facebook from A >> does not add @apiusage to the result, as socialmedia.facebook form B >> overwrites socialmedia.facebook from A. >> >> That will allow a deployer to completely replace a configuration "object" >> without having to get their head around more complex inheritance rules. >> This does assume that configurations are collected together into "objects". >> I think its is important to keep it simple. >> If this isnt simple enough then it needs some more thought. >> > > Yes, I think we agree on this, and that's how my implementation > currently works). So for your above example if we have "A then B" and > you get the collection for "socialmedia" you get "youtube" and > "facebook" with the properties you list above. > > This is merging on a resource collection level and yes, we must do that. > My post here was more about merging properties, sorry that I didn't make > this clear :) > > But it's great that we have a common understand now > > Thanks > Carsten > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected] >
