+1 for wjm's idea.
The ultimate goal is to use servicecomb.* everywhere in code and
configurations.
We can provide a compatible layer to read the cse.* configurations and
merge them into servicecomb.* and use serviccomb.* elsewhere in the code.
Perhaps we can also provide a tool to transform all configuration files
from cse.* to servicecomb.* to help user migrate, this should be quite
simple.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:57 PM Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi，
>
> I think we can borrow some idea from Spring Boot.
> There are some configuration change between Spring Boot 2 and Spring Boot
> 1.
> Spring Boot provides configuration change module to the mapping thing, or
> print error message for the changed properties.
>
> Any thought?
>
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:08 AM, bismy <bi...@qq.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Currently we duplicate configurations for servicecomb prefix to cse
> > prefix, and in code we can read configurations by cse prefix. That is:
> > 1. Config file using servicecomb.x.y, can read in code with
> > getProperty("servicecomb.x.y") and getProperty("cse.x.y")
> > 2. Config file using cse.x.y, can read in code with
> getProperty("cse.x.y")
> >
> >
> > If we use cse prefix in code, this is the most portable way to read both
> > cse.x.y and servicecomb.x.y configurations.
> >
> >
> > However, this will leading us to write code always using cse, this is not
> > our intention. We are asking users/developers to using servicecomb
> > gradually.
> >
> >
> > I suggest we use servicecomb prefix when adding new configuration items.
> > But there maybe some axtra work users need to do. For example,
> >
> >
> > One user's project using cse prefix:
> >
> >
> > cse:
> > function:
> > a: false
> > b: false
> >
> >
> > And when we add a new configuration item: servicecomb.funciton.c, users
> > must change the configuration file to one of the following:
> >
> >
> > servicecomb:
> > function:
> > a: false
> > b: false
> > c: false
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > or
> > cse:
> > function:
> > a: false
> > b: false
> >
> > servicecomb:
> > function:
> > c: false
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we need to encourage users using servicecomb when upgrading, and
> > developers to use servicecomb prefix when adding new configuration
> items.
> >
> >
> > Any idea?
>
--
Best Regards,
Yang.
