But this will only work, if the configuration passed through the file-installer is faster then the extender ... and this timing I really don't want to rely on.
regards, Achim 2016-12-09 11:30 GMT+01:00 Christian Schneider <[email protected]>: > As far as I understood the config from inside the bundle is only applied > if config admin does not already have a config. > So if there is a config in etc or in plain config admin it will always be > prefered over the default. > > I think the configurator would currently work in karaf like the old config > element which only created the config in config admin. > I think though that we could enhance the behaviour so the config is also > written to etc. I think then it should work exactly like the config Element > works now. > > Christian > > > On 09.12.2016 11:18, Achim Nierbeck wrote: > >> I'm not really sure I like the bundle approach, >> it has some down-sides. >> >> Especially in the context of Karaf, the external configuration via the etc >> folder is well known and works reliable. >> I know it's a bit cumbersome if "NO" extra config is needed, but >> especially >> in a dev/ops separated environment (still the most-commonly-used) ops >> people just need to adapt the configurations. >> >> How is an Update handled? When will the bundle-based or the etc-based >> config be used? >> >> It's ok for environments like the enroute one, where the result is a >> self-contained all-in-one executable jar with no extras like >> what we have in a container with Karaf. >> >> regards, Achim >> >> > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > 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
