You are right. This will be a problem. Maybe we can feed this into the
development at felix.
As fileinstall is also at felix they might be interested to solve this
anyway.
I will open an issue.
Christian
On 09.12.2016 11:32, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
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
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de
Open Source Architect
http://www.talend.com
