^ Another reason I like commons-configuration here is for property-interpolation with HierarchicalConfiguration.
-- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > I absolutely DO think they should be combined in a properties file > located in $HOME/.accumulo/config > I absolutely DO NOT think this client configuration should be > exclusive to the shell, and I absolutely DO NOT think it should be > XML. > > I would love to see all our clients/client code use > commons-configuration to hold properties from the properties file, so > that only a --config parameter is needed (with reasonable defaults, so > even that is not absolutely necessary). I also think that every > property that can exist in the file should be possible to override on > the command-line. I personally prefer to use system properties, using > commons-configuration's HierarchicalConfiguration, but jcommander may > make it easier to do the same thing in a slightly different way. > > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Michael Berman <[email protected]> wrote: >> As part of SSL, we need to introduce configuration so accumulo clients >> (such as ZooKeeperInstance) can find trust stores. It seems like this has >> a lot in common with shell config files in ACCUMULO-1397. Do people think >> these should be combined, or should the shell have its own separate config? >> I was imagining a simple java .properties-style key=value list. Does this >> seem reasonable? Or should the format be more like the xml of the site >> config? I was also imagining looking through a list of files that would >> each override settings, perhaps in the following order (from lowest to >> highest priority): >> >> /etc/accumulo/client.conf >> $ACCUMULO_HOME/conf/client.conf >> $HOME/.accumulo/config >> --client-config command line switch for shell or explicit parameter passed >> to ZooKeeperInstance >> >> Does this sound good to y'all? Should the explicit switch/parameter have >> per-property override semantics, or should it just be used as the exclusive >> source of properties if specified? >> >> Mike Drob, are you actively working on the shell side of this already? I >> see that bug is assigned to you... >> >> Thanks, >> Michael
