Github user aledsage commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/612#discussion_r109141795
--- Diff:
camp/camp-brooklyn/src/main/java/org/apache/brooklyn/camp/brooklyn/spi/creation/BrooklynComponentTemplateResolver.java
---
@@ -257,6 +257,7 @@ public boolean canResolve() {
new
BrooklynEntityDecorationResolver.EnricherSpecResolver(yamlLoader).decorate(spec,
attrs, encounteredRegisteredTypeIds);
new
BrooklynEntityDecorationResolver.InitializerResolver(yamlLoader).decorate(spec,
attrs, encounteredRegisteredTypeIds);
new
BrooklynEntityDecorationResolver.SpecParameterResolver(yamlLoader).decorate(spec,
attrs, encounteredRegisteredTypeIds);
+ new
BrooklynEntityDecorationResolver.TagsResolver(yamlLoader).decorate(spec, attrs,
encounteredRegisteredTypeIds);
--- End diff --
Thanks @neykov - makes sense. However, a much bigger topic is how we really
should be defining effectors/feeds in yaml. To me, the `brooklyn.initializers`
feels like a powerful hack - re-using a generic feature to add things that are
fundamental to blueprints. I think it's confusing for users to have to use
`brooklyn.initializers` rather than us having first-class `brooklyn.effectors`.
But let's not discuss that here - it can be a dev@brooklyn discussion when
we're ready!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
