Hi, Alexander Klimetschek schrieb: >> I don't like this option, because it creates issues: >> >> * copy-paste is always problematic (yes, my option O1 has then >> same issues) > > If Bertrand's proposal of using multiple runmodes in the folder name....
Well, this makes things a little bit more complicated ... and since a system may be running in more than a single RunMode, you could devise a special runmode used to select common /etc/map setups. > >> * merging two tree structures creates additional issues with >> respect to ordering and expected behaviour (rember that a >> system may be running with more than one run-mode, so this >> merge is required) > > The same merging has to be done for O2. Maybe if we would use approach > O2 with the properties, but allow for additional folders in between > that are not seen as config, we could achieve the same. And the node > name of those additional runmode folders would be free to chose. That's not correct ;-) O2 has a single tree (whether fixed at /etc/map or not). Of this tree of entries the entries with a sling:runmode setting not matching the current RunMode are ignored. Thus there is no merging here. > >> * Other than merging this is more or less the same as my >> option O1 (ok, that's not really a reason for dislike but ;-) ) > > Then you end up with a bunch of configs (eg. via jcrinstall) like > > config.runmode1 => mapping.location = /etc/map/runmode1 > config.runmode2 => mapping.location = /etc/map/runmode2 > etc. > > that cry for automation ;-) Well, yes ;-) So if you expect "tons of RunModes", O2 may be better ... Regards Felix
