At a first glance, it looks like this patch fix the problem substitution when loading properties, but not when saving.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 15:22, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote: > After browsing through the code it seems like this is already implemented. > The InterpolationHelper was updated to support this in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-2663 > > (by yourself I believe Guillaume). This should be part of version 1.1.0 of > Felix utils. Fileinstall uses 1.1.0 of Felix utils. It is marked as a > private package and is therefore colocated in the fileinstall bundle. > > Looking at fileinstall it also seems like it is updated to pass the bundle > context to InterpolationHelper. All in all, it seems like this has already > been resolved... > > Now, why doesn't it work for me then? > > I will do a few more tests to verify that I'm not lying about this, > > /Bengt > > 2012/4/25 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > > > Will do... > > > > > > 2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > > > >> Sure, and if you could provide a patch, that would be awesome of course > >> ;-) > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 14:14, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > 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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------ > >> 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
