Instead of trying to guess the format of the config file, we could simpy use the extension I think. The <configfile> element has both the file name and the url. So if the file name ends with ".cfg", we assume we can write the content to configadmin directly. I'm not sure I see a real problem here.
2016-12-08 15:28 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>: > > > 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/ > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
