How will you handle services being configured in multiple property files? Specifically, I am talking about the services.PoolService.classname=<classname> type entries.
-------------------------------------------- Quinton McCombs NequalsOne - HealthCare marketing tools mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.NequalsOne.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 7:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Fragileness in PullService and VelocityService > > > You are correct about the existing config file honors the > order of things.. However, when wrapped in a > CompositeConfiguration object (which allows multiple property > files, plus xml based property files) then the order become > uncertain, not set.. > > I suppose I will dig into the code and figure out why the > order is not set, and make it honor the order of the properties. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:40 PM > To: Turbine Developers List > Subject: Re: Fragileness in PullService and VelocityService > > > Hi All. > > This conversation is sounding *really* familiar. I thought > the existing turbine config already honored the order of > services as they are organized in the config file. > > On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 01:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Oh, I believe the use case! I just am trembling in fear of > actually > > attempting to add the "state the dependencies" in the > existing Turbine > > services system. One of the reasons for using Avalon components is > > that you > > can do that! > > > > I guess that means I have to tweak/hack/ otherwise brutalize the > > configuration code to perserve order. > > > I thought that was fixed a couple years ago. I dug through > mail archive and found this which is what I think I'm > remembering: > <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ msg00757.html> On Tuesday 29 May 2001 10:29, John Thorhauer wrote: > On Tuesday 29 May 2001 05:12, Jon Stevens wrote: > > Yup. That is exactly the problem. We need to reverse the order of > > startup. > > Actually it looks to me like the mapping is not holding its order properly. > I am not very familiar with the Configuration object but the comments in > TurbineServices say that the it is used because it will keep the order > correctly. Does anyone know if this actually works? At the end of the thread John provided a patch to the BaseServiceBroker which is unfortunately not in the easier- to-read 'diff -u' format: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ msg00758.html> Hope that helps. -Eric (Dobbs) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
