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 <ben...@basistech.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, David Jencks
> <david_jen...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Benson Margulies <ben...@basistech.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org 
>>> <mailto:cziege...@apache.org>> 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 ${xxxxx} 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 <ben...@basistech.com> 
>>>>>> 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 
>>> <mailto:users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org 
>>> <mailto:users-h...@felix.apache.org>

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

Reply via email to