In that case I'd say postpone to 4.1 ... regards, Achim
2016-12-08 15:23 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: > Hi Achim, > > You are right for "other" files than pure cfg files (we are using this in > decanter for elasticsearch YML and cellar for hazelcast XML). > > In that case, it means that we have to check the format in KARAF-4829 (it > could be a little more complex than just reading the properties from the > file URL ;)). > > For 2, my intention is to keep <configfile/> anyway, but does it make > sense to create ConfigAdmin cofniguration from <configfile/> on Karaf 4.0.x > (or postpone to 4.1.x). > > Regards > JB > > > On 12/08/2016 03:16 PM, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > >> Hi JB, >> >> 1. No, as <configfile> can also be used for all kind of other >> configurational files, especially useful for the jetty.xml which isn't >> part >> of the configuration used by ConfigAdmin. >> 2. No, again Pax-Web needs configfile to work as it is right now ... >> >> regards, Achim >> >> >> 2016-12-08 15:08 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >> >> Hi guys, >>> >>> Some weeks ago we discussed on the mailing list about the fact that a >>> feature using <configfile/> just creates the cfg file in the etc folder, >>> and the corresponding configuration is created later by ConfigAdmin >>> (thanks >>> to FileInstall). >>> This can produce unfortunate behavior as the bundles in the feature can >>> be >>> started before the creation of the configuration in ConfigAdmin. >>> Christian proposes to create the configuration in ConfigAdmin as soon as >>> the FeatureService deals with <configfile/> tag. >>> >>> On the other hand, in Karaf 4.0.5, we improved the <config/> tag: the >>> FeatureService now creates the corresponding cfg file in etc based on the >>> <config/> tag content. >>> >>> So, with KARAF-4829, we will have the same behavior using <config/> and >>> <configfile/>: >>> * <config/> will create the configuration in ConfigAdmin and the cfg file >>> * <configfile/> will create the cfg file and the configuration in >>> ConfigAdmin >>> >>> The difference is where the configuration comes from: >>> - an existing file (mvn URL) in the case of <configfile/> >>> - inner properties in the case of <config/> >>> >>> I wonder: >>> 1. does it make sense to have both <config/> and <configfile/> in the >>> future (Karaf 4.1.x) ? >>> 2. should we do the change on <configfile/> in Karaf 4.0.x ? >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
