Thanks guys. My real use case is deploying a template item from the UI, which is the parent of all other entities being deployed. Therefore Aled's suggestion of adding the `provisioning.properties` to `brooklyn.config` of the parent, in this case the template item, should work. I'll report back.
-Mike On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 7:47 PM Aled Sage <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Off the top of my head, I'd expect it to be: > > ``` > name: Server (Brooklyn Example) > location: > aws-ec2-us-east-1: > imageId: us-east-1/ami-6224a40a > services: > - type: server > name: My VM > ``` > > Alternatively (less good), you could rely on inheriting the > "provisioning.properties" in the runtime management hierarchy so that > all servers in that part of the tree get the config (see docs at > https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-docs/pull/115/files). For example, > something like: > > ``` > name: Multiple Servers (Brooklyn Example) > location:aws-ec2-us-east-1 > services: > - type: org.apache.brooklyn.entity.stock.BasicApplication > brooklyn.config: > provisioning.properties: > imageId: us-east-1/ami-6224a40a > brooklyn.children: > - type: server > name: vm1 > - type: server > name: vm2 > ``` > > Aled > > > On 21/10/2016 00:31, Mike Zaccardo wrote: > > Hi dev, > > > > I'd like to override the `imageID` of a location so it applies to all > > entities in a blueprint. Consider this simple blueprint: > > > > ``` > > name: Server (Brooklyn Example) > > > > location: aws-ec2-us-east-1 > > > > services: > > - type: server > > name: My VM > > provisioning.properties: > > imageId: us-east-1/ami-6224a40a > > ``` > > > > This will successfully deploy a VM to my preconfigured location named > > `aws-ec2-us-east-1` with the desired AMI `us-east-1/ami-6224a40a`. > However, > > I'd like to add more services to this blueprint but do not want to have > to > > specify `provisioning.properties` and `imageId` for each one. What is the > > proper syntax to set the `imageId` for the location itself so that it > will > > apply to all entities? > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > >
