Did you have a chance to look at my patch Guillaume? It'd be great if this improvement could make it into Karaf's next release since that's where it could be really useful.
/Bengt 2012/4/25 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > Patch attached. > > /Bengt > > 2012/4/25 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> > >> JIRA created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3487 >> >> Patch is in the works... >> >> /Bengt >> >> 2012/4/25 Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> >> >>> OK, I'll look closer then... >>> >>> >>> 2012/4/25 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
