Wouldn't that be a neat feature? Shall I create a JIRA?

/Bengt

2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>

> You're absolutely right.  Custom properties are loaded by karaf main and
> given to the system bundle when the osgi framework is created, which are
> then made available to all bundles using BundleContext#getProperty().
> The InterpolationHelper can be given a BundleContext which can be used in
> exactly the way we want.
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 13:47, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The way I understood it, the InterpolationHelper is not used by config
> > admin but when the configuration is loaded from file (which is initiated
> by
> > file install). Thus, file install would have to be made aware of the
> > properties defined in custom.properties somehow. I have no idea where
> those
> > are evaluated though.
> >
> > /Bengt
> >
> > 2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> >
> > > Yes, it should be possible to do that, for to be consistent, it would
> > have
> > > to be done by ConfigAdmin too, else it could lead to inconsistencies
> > > between what FileInstall thinks the property value is and what the
> bundle
> > > actually receive.  So I'd be fine with any change if those are done by
> > > ConfigAdmin, but if they are done by iPojo or blueprint (for example),
> > i'm
> > > not so sure.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 13:36, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello again Guillaume,
> > > >
> > > > I found the place where the substitution is being made. It's in the
> > class
> > > > InterpolationHelper which resides in the same package as Felix
> > Properties
> > > > class.
> > > >
> > > > I made a small test. It seems like variables defined as system
> > variables
> > > > are preserved (because InterpolationHelper knows about them). Also,
> if
> > I
> > > > refer to other configuration properties, they are preserved as well.
> > > >
> > > > However, the properties I define in my custom.properties file are not
> > > > preserved. Apparently they are not substituted by
> InterpolationHelper.
> > I
> > > > have no idea where that substitution takes place but I would like to
> > make
> > > > fileinstall aware of it. Do you think that is possible?
> > > >
> > > > /Bengt
> > > >
> > > > 2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, only properties that have change should be written back.
> > > > > But as you said, the check is done by substituting inside the
> > > properties
> > > > > file, but if the computed value is different from the value from
> the
> > > > > configuration, the whole property will be overwritten by the new
> > value.
> > > >  Do
> > > > > you have substitution with system properties or other bundle
> > > > configuration
> > > > > properties ? If so, those properties will be overwritten at the
> first
> > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:28, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You mean that only properties that have changed should be written
> > > back?
> > > > > Not
> > > > > > the part where variables are preserved even in changed properties
> > - I
> > > > > > assume.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > At a first glance I can't figure out where the variable
> > substitution
> > > > > takes
> > > > > > place either. But for this to work, it must be done before
> > comparing
> > > > with
> > > > > > the existing value - right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Bengt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's exactly what is supposed to happen because we use
> > > > > > > the org.apache.felix.utils.properties.Properties which is known
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > One thing that could happen though is that the properties that
> > are
> > > > > > > substituted are not know to fileinstall, so that it can't
> really
> > > > > compare
> > > > > > > the real values.
> > > > > > > The reason is that file install doesn't use the bundle system
> > > context
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > computing the substitution so it only takes into account the
> > > > > substitution
> > > > > > > within the file, not with system properties or bundle context
> > > > > properties.
> > > > > > > I'm actually not sure who does such a substitution on the
> client
> > > side
> > > > > as
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > doubt ConfigAdmin does not automatically.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:11, Bengt Rodehav <
> [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One improvement I've been thinking about is to only write
> back
> > > > > > properties
> > > > > > > > that have actually changed. This would help in my case since
> I
> > > have
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > web gui that disables/enables my services. I do so by setting
> > an
> > > > > iPOJO
> > > > > > > > @Controller property to true/false via config admin. I
> > therefore
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > any variables for this particular property but my other
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > properties (that are not changed) are "ruined" because of the
> > > > > variable
> > > > > > > > expansion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure if config admin provides enough information to
> > > > determine
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > properties have been changed. Either way file install could
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > > evaluate it's current value of the property (and do variable
> > > > > expansion
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the process) and compare this value with the value provided
> by
> > > > config
> > > > > > > > admin. If they are the same than no writing back of this
> > property
> > > > is
> > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > and the variable would then be preserved in the configuration
> > > file.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess it would also be possible to preserve variables in
> > > > properties
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > have been changed as well. File install could check if the
> > > original
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > contained variables. It could then try use those variables
> for
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > value as well. It would then have to search in the new value
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > of the property is still used and then substitute that value
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > property. This is not foolproof and could be ambiguous but I
> > > think
> > > > it
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > be implemented to work in most cases. This feature should be
> > > > > > configurable
> > > > > > > > since it is not 100% safe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The feature not to write back properties that have not
> changed
> > > > could
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > be configurable but doesn't really have to be since I believe
> > it
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > made foolprooof.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /Bengt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2012/4/25 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I use file install (currently 3.1.10 but have also tried
> with
> > > > > 3.2.2)
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Karaf 2.2.5 to feed configurations (both normal and factory
> > > > > > > > configurations)
> > > > > > > > > into the config admin service.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In my configuration files I use different variables that I
> > > define
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Karaf's custom.properties file. I'm not sure whether Karaf
> > > > exposes
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > system properties but they are nevertheless picked up by
> > > > > fileinstall.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, when fileinstall is configured to write back
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > changes to the configuration file, these variables are not
> > > > > preserved
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > are expanded. This makes it very hard to read and further
> > > > maintain
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > configuration files. I can easily see why this is happening
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > is divided between file install and the configuration admin
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > does not know about the variables at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't have a suggestion how to solve this but this is a
> > major
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > (for me at least) to use fileinstall and config admin
> > > together. I
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > fileinstall was just an implementation of the config admin
> > > > instead
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > > > general listener to configuration chagnes there would be
> > other
> > > > > > > > > possibilities.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions how to combine write back
> of
> > > > > > > > > configuration changes with preservation of variables? Could
> > > > > > fileinstall
> > > > > > > > > provide such a feature?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /Bengt
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > > > > > > http://fusesource.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > > > > http://fusesource.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ------------------------
> > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > ------------------------
> > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > ------------------------
> > > FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> > > http://fusesource.com
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> FuseSource, Integration everywhere
> http://fusesource.com
>

Reply via email to