I think it is a very good idea. As long as we retain an opt-out possibility to avoid accessing the system-properties (reasons to avoid them could either be "pureness" reasons or the presence of a securitymanager).
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > The least intrusive implementation of this is to take out the exception > thrown on org/apache/polygene/api/composite/PropertyMapper.java:117. Then > add the backup for the two maps mentioned above, with some > strategy/priority. > > Niclas > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > at the moment, the content of the properties file drives what is expected > > in the ConfigurationComposite. If there are more properties than there > are > > declared and matching Proprety<> methods, then there is an Exception. > > > > This might have been rational back in the days when this was discussed > > first time, but if we are heading towards supporting external and perhaps > > more exotic configuration "supply-chains", then I think it would be more > > logical that the ConfigurationComposite simply reads what it wants and > > ignores everything else. > > > > AND then would could have this super cool addition that if no files are > > found that works, fall back to System.getProperties() and > System.getenv() as > > the final backups. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Cheers > > -- > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java > > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
