2016-12-08 15:27 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>:
> Yes, Achim already replied and I fully agree. > > So, I wonder if it makes sense to do ConfigAdmin configuration creation > for <configfile/> as it would require to detect file format. > > Can we document that way: > 1. for cfg file, we recommend to use <config/> in feature XML > 2. for any other file format, we recommend to use <configfile/> in feature > XML > ? > That sounds to me the exact reason why we create those two elements in the first place. ;-) > > Regards > JB > > > On 12/08/2016 03:24 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> The <configfile> element supports any kind of configuration file, not >> only >> properties file. For example we use it for the xml configuration of jetty >> in pax-web. >> >> 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 > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
