Why don't you just put your XML string as the value in the config admin?
If you really _have_ to do it "right", then I would use the host name as the
key, and the port as the value. But this assumes all the host names are
unique, which they might not well be. But using XML documents as the values in
config admin dictionaries is just as "elegant" as anything else. Even your
approach below is perfectly acceptable and, imho, not be considered "sub
optimal".
I haven't tried it myself, but I believe the ConfigAdmin should already work
with the MetaType service. But, as I said, I have not done such as I don't
find the work arounds such as discussed above unacceptable...
On Feb 6, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Daniel Bimschas wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> I'm writing an application that uses Configuration Admin to be configured at
> runtime. Now, for one of my DS components I have a more complex configuration
> requirement. Assume e.g. I want to configure the component to create a set of
> TCP connections. Using XML configuration I would use something like this
> snippet:
>
> <connections>
> <connection>
> <host>somehost.com</host>
> <port>1234</port>
> </connection>
> <connection>
> <host>someotherhost.com</host>
> <port>4321</port>
> </connection>
> </connections>
>
> My question now is if there's an elegant way to map such a set of complex
> configuration objects to Configuration Admins properties file format? Maybe I
> don't see the wood for the trees but I can't think of a nice way (so that I
> could also use the Metatype Service specification), except this suboptimal
> one:
>
> connection.host = {somehost.com,someotherhost.com}
> connection.port = {1234,4321}
>
> where each entry of the string array of the property 'connection.host' key
> must have an according entry 'connection.port' with the same index. However,
> that solution will make editing the configuration files very error prone and
> unintuitive.
>
> I can think of another alternative, which is using a component factory that
> creates one instance of my service per connection configuration. But I have
> other use cases for which this approach would not be feasible.
>
> If there's no elegant way my next question is the following: are there any
> activities towards an XML based counterpart to Configuration Admin Service
> and Metatype Service?
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Daniel Bimschas
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> [email protected]
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
