Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:27 PM, David Jencks
 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>
>> David, the only case I was concerned with is when there is a
>> pre-existing file with the syntax of my test case, which is the syntax
>> supported by fileinstall. I think that the confusion results because
>> there is some escaping convention that permits persisting a value like
>> ${foo} and reading it back, but I was not using that syntax, because I
>> was trying to move some files that were used with fileinstall in karaf
>> and use them with straight CA with plain Felix.
>
> I can’t imagine why you think that ought to work.  The persistence format for 
> a ca implementation is an entirely internal detail.  If you want a ca 
> implementation to be able to read a persisted configuration from a file, that 
> file has to have been created by that same ca implementation.

Well, for what it's worth, I can explain how my imagination got
started here. I didn't know, at first, that Karaf was using
fileinstall to read these files. I thought that CA itself was reading
them from the sort of obvious 'name=value' format. When I did enough
debugging to find the role of fileinstall in Karaf, I didn't rethink
CA.

>
>> In practical terms,
>> I've dropped in fileinstall to make progress.
>>
>> I think that my JIRA amounts to, "If you start with a file with
>> invalid syntax, CA throws the entire file away and does not log an
>> error”.
>
> Unless the file was created by the ca implementation itself, throwing it away 
> seems reasonable to me.  It does seem like an error would be appropriate 
> though.
>
> So, there might be a bug (beyond possible desirable logging), but I don’t 
> think you’ve demonstrated that yet.

I don't make any claim for any bug except a possible 'feature request'
for logging at this point.


>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> The test class I sent along is pretty much useless except as the
>> nucleus of a test that would demand error logging from the overall CA;
>> the low level file persistence manager is working correctly, I realize
>> now, in rejecting that syntax.
>>
>> I will try to make the time to add the relevant test case (and
>> probably the fix to log the error) later in the weekend.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Jencks
>>  wrote:
>>> Along with Carsten, I’m confused by your jira report.  What happens when 
>>> you create a configuration in code and try to update it with your property? 
>>>  Can you get it back?  There might be a problem with persisting such a 
>>> property, but your test doesn’t demonstrate it because perhaps the 
>>> persistence is encoding the value somehow.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
 On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:

 I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.


 public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
   private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";

   @Test
   public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
   {
   final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
 ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
   assertEquals(1, dict.size());
   assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
   }
 }

 On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler >> > wrote:
> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a 
> ConfigurationPlugin.  Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until 
> this works with DS.  Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, 
> but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
>>>
>>> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
>>> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
>>> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
>>
>> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
>> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
>> were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?
>
> Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
> that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
> assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
> parser supports.
>
>
>>
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>

 I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
 the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.

 Carsten

> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
> using instead of fileinstall.
>
> Maybe others have

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[David Jencks]

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> 
> David, the only case I was concerned with is when there is a
> pre-existing file with the syntax of my test case, which is the syntax
> supported by fileinstall. I think that the confusion results because
> there is some escaping convention that permits persisting a value like
> ${foo} and reading it back, but I was not using that syntax, because I
> was trying to move some files that were used with fileinstall in karaf
> and use them with straight CA with plain Felix.

I can’t imagine why you think that ought to work.  The persistence format for a 
ca implementation is an entirely internal detail.  If you want a ca 
implementation to be able to read a persisted configuration from a file, that 
file has to have been created by that same ca implementation.

> In practical terms,
> I've dropped in fileinstall to make progress.
> 
> I think that my JIRA amounts to, "If you start with a file with
> invalid syntax, CA throws the entire file away and does not log an
> error”.

Unless the file was created by the ca implementation itself, throwing it away 
seems reasonable to me.  It does seem like an error would be appropriate though.

So, there might be a bug (beyond possible desirable logging), but I don’t think 
you’ve demonstrated that yet.

thanks
david jencks

> 
> The test class I sent along is pretty much useless except as the
> nucleus of a test that would demand error logging from the overall CA;
> the low level file persistence manager is working correctly, I realize
> now, in rejecting that syntax.
> 
> I will try to make the time to add the relevant test case (and
> probably the fix to log the error) later in the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Jencks
>  wrote:
>> Along with Carsten, I’m confused by your jira report.  What happens when you 
>> create a configuration in code and try to update it with your property?  Can 
>> you get it back?  There might be a problem with persisting such a property, 
>> but your test doesn’t demonstrate it because perhaps the persistence is 
>> encoding the value somehow.
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
>>>   private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";
>>> 
>>>   @Test
>>>   public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
>>>   {
>>>   final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
>>>   assertEquals(1, dict.size());
>>>   assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
>>>   }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  
>>> wrote:
 On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
  wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler > > wrote:
 I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a 
 ConfigurationPlugin.  Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until 
 this works with DS.  Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, 
 but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
>> 
>> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
>> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
>> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
> 
> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
> were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?
 
 Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
 that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
 assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
 parser supports.
 
 
> 
> david jencks
> 
>> 
 
>>> 
>>> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
>>> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>>> 
>>> Carsten
>>> 
 Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
 using instead of fileinstall.
 
 Maybe others have other opinions….
 
 david jencks
 
 
 
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
> 
> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

p.s. It's always possible that I'm _wrong_, and CA is logging, but I
didn't have the log service set up soon enough. That's another reason
for me to be the one to spend time trying to make a test case.


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> David, the only case I was concerned with is when there is a
> pre-existing file with the syntax of my test case, which is the syntax
> supported by fileinstall. I think that the confusion results because
> there is some escaping convention that permits persisting a value like
> ${foo} and reading it back, but I was not using that syntax, because I
> was trying to move some files that were used with fileinstall in karaf
> and use them with straight CA with plain Felix. In practical terms,
> I've dropped in fileinstall to make progress.
>
> I think that my JIRA amounts to, "If you start with a file with
> invalid syntax, CA throws the entire file away and does not log an
> error".
>
> The test class I sent along is pretty much useless except as the
> nucleus of a test that would demand error logging from the overall CA;
> the low level file persistence manager is working correctly, I realize
> now, in rejecting that syntax.
>
> I will try to make the time to add the relevant test case (and
> probably the fix to log the error) later in the weekend.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Jencks
>  wrote:
>> Along with Carsten, I’m confused by your jira report.  What happens when you 
>> create a configuration in code and try to update it with your property?  Can 
>> you get it back?  There might be a problem with persisting such a property, 
>> but your test doesn’t demonstrate it because perhaps the persistence is 
>> encoding the value somehow.
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>>
>>> I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.
>>>
>>>
>>> public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
>>>private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";
>>>
>>>@Test
>>>public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
>>>{
>>>final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
>>>assertEquals(1, dict.size());
>>>assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
>>>}
>>> }
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  
>>> wrote:
 On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler > > wrote:
 I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a 
 ConfigurationPlugin.  Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until 
 this works with DS.  Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, 
 but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
>>
>> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
>> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
>> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
>
> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
> were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?

 Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
 that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
 assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
 parser supports.


>
> david jencks
>
>>

>>>
>>> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
>>> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
 Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
 using instead of fileinstall.

 Maybe others have other opinions….

 david jencks



> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
>
> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> C

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

David, the only case I was concerned with is when there is a
pre-existing file with the syntax of my test case, which is the syntax
supported by fileinstall. I think that the confusion results because
there is some escaping convention that permits persisting a value like
${foo} and reading it back, but I was not using that syntax, because I
was trying to move some files that were used with fileinstall in karaf
and use them with straight CA with plain Felix. In practical terms,
I've dropped in fileinstall to make progress.

I think that my JIRA amounts to, "If you start with a file with
invalid syntax, CA throws the entire file away and does not log an
error".

The test class I sent along is pretty much useless except as the
nucleus of a test that would demand error logging from the overall CA;
the low level file persistence manager is working correctly, I realize
now, in rejecting that syntax.

I will try to make the time to add the relevant test case (and
probably the fix to log the error) later in the weekend.



On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:05 PM, David Jencks
 wrote:
> Along with Carsten, I’m confused by your jira report.  What happens when you 
> create a configuration in code and try to update it with your property?  Can 
> you get it back?  There might be a problem with persisting such a property, 
> but your test doesn’t demonstrate it because perhaps the persistence is 
> encoding the value somehow.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>
>> I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.
>>
>>
>> public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
>>private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";
>>
>>@Test
>>public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
>>{
>>final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
>> ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
>>assertEquals(1, dict.size());
>>assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
>>}
>> }
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
>>>  wrote:

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler  > wrote:
>>> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin. 
>>>  Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  
>>> Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS 
>>> part yet.
>
> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.

 I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
 expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
 were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?
>>>
>>> Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
>>> that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
>>> assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
>>> parser supports.
>>>
>>>

 david jencks

>
>>>
>>
>> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
>> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>>
>> Carsten
>>
>>> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
>>> using instead of fileinstall.
>>>
>>> Maybe others have other opinions….
>>>
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
 On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
 wrote:

 The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
 behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
 optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
 other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>> cziege...@apache.org
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>
>
> -
> To unsubs

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[David Jencks]

Along with Carsten, I’m confused by your jira report.  What happens when you 
create a configuration in code and try to update it with your property?  Can 
you get it back?  There might be a problem with persisting such a property, but 
your test doesn’t demonstrate it because perhaps the persistence is encoding 
the value somehow.

thanks
david jencks

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> 
> I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.
> 
> 
> public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
>private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";
> 
>@Test
>public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
>{
>final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
> ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
>assertEquals(1, dict.size());
>assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
>}
> }
> 
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
>>  wrote:
>>> 
 On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
 
 On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler >>> > wrote:
>> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
>> Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  
>> Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS 
>> part yet.
 
 Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
 parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
 chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
>>> 
>>> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
>>> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
>>> were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?
>> 
>> Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
>> that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
>> assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
>> parser supports.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> david jencks
>>> 
 
>> 
> 
> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
> 
> Carsten
> 
>> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
>> using instead of fileinstall.
>> 
>> Maybe others have other opinions….
>> 
>> david jencks
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
>>> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
>>> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
>>> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziege...@apache.org
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org 
 
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org 
 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

I could commit this test, which fails, if you like, with an @Ignore.


public class InvalidFileSyntaxTest {
private static final String CONFIG = "rootPath=${bt.root}\n";

@Test
public void testPropSyntax() throws IOException
{
final Dictionary dict = ConfigurationHandler.read(new
ByteArrayInputStream(CONFIG.getBytes("UTF-8")));
assertEquals(1, dict.size());
assertEquals("${bt.root}", dict.get("rootPath"));
}
}

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler >> > wrote:
> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
> Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  
> Maybe Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS 
> part yet.
>>>
>>> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
>>> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
>>> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
>>
>> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
>> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key 
>> were you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?
>
> Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
> that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
> assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
> parser supports.
>
>
>>
>> david jencks
>>
>>>
>

 I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
 the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.

 Carsten

> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are 
> using instead of fileinstall.
>
> Maybe others have other opinions….
>
> david jencks
>
>
>
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
>> wrote:
>>
>> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
>> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
>> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
>> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>
>




 --
 Carsten Ziegeler
 Adobe Research Switzerland
 cziege...@apache.org


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org 
>>> 
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org 
>>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler > > wrote:
 I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
 Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  Maybe 
 Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
>>
>> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
>> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
>> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.
>
> I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d 
> expect it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key were 
> you (where it won’t work AFAIK)?

Nope, just as a value (${bt.foo.bar}). I opened a JIRA about the fact
that CA discarded the entire file without even a log message. I
assumed that it had to do with the syntax for arrays and such that the
parser supports.


>
> david jencks
>
>>

>>>
>>> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
>>> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>>>
>>> Carsten
>>>
 Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are using 
 instead of fileinstall.

 Maybe others have other opinions….

 david jencks



> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  
> wrote:
>
> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>


 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>>> cziege...@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org 
>> 
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org 
>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[David Jencks]

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler  > wrote:
>>> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
>>> Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  Maybe 
>>> Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
> 
> Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
> parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
> chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.

I’ve been assuming you only want to put the ${xxx} in values, where I’d expect 
it to be a fine persistable value…. you weren’t using it as a key were you 
(where it won’t work AFAIK)?

david jencks

> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
>> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>> 
>> Carsten
>> 
>>> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are using 
>>> instead of fileinstall.
>>> 
>>> Maybe others have other opinions….
>>> 
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
 
 The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
 behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
 optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
 other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Carsten Ziegeler
>> Adobe Research Switzerland
>> cziege...@apache.org
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org 
> 

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler  wrote:
>> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
>> Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  Maybe 
>> Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS part yet.

Interesting. When I tried to use such a file with CA, the low-level
parser rejected the ${x} syntax long before a plugin would get a
chance to modify the dictionary contents, or so I thought.

>>
>
> I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
> the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.
>
> Carsten
>
>> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are using 
>> instead of fileinstall.
>>
>> Maybe others have other opinions….
>>
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>>
>>> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
>>> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
>>> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
>>> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> Adobe Research Switzerland
> cziege...@apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Carsten Ziegeler]

> I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
> Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  Maybe 
> Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS part yet.
> 

I've implemented both parts, the CA part is in trunk, the DS part is in
the sandbox branch, but I plan to move it to trunk soon.

Carsten

> Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are using 
> instead of fileinstall.
> 
> Maybe others have other opinions….
> 
> david jencks
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
>>
>> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
>> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
>> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
>> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> 
> 


 

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziege...@apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Re: Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[David Jencks]

I don’t think this belongs in ca.  You could use a ConfigurationPlugin.  
Unfortunately you’ll have to wait till R7 until this works with DS.  Maybe 
Carsten already implemented the CA part, but I didn’t do the DS part yet.

Alternatively you can code it into whatever management agent you are using 
instead of fileinstall.

Maybe others have other opinions….

david jencks



> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> 
> The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
> behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
> optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
> other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org

Prop expansion via fileinstall but not configuration admin

[Benson Margulies]

The system property expansion feature of the configuration-admin
behavior of fileinstall is quite convenient. I could code it,
optionally, into confadmin. I wish I could have it without all the
other mechanism of fileinstall that I don't need. Acceptable?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org