karaf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] <config/> & <configfile/> in feature (KARAF-4829)
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:30:53 GMT
As far as I understood the config from inside the bundle is only applied 
if config admin does not already have a config.
So if there is a config in etc or in plain config admin it will always 
be prefered over the default.

I think the configurator would currently work in karaf like the old 
config element which only created the config in config admin.
I think though that we could enhance the behaviour so the config is also 
written to etc. I think then it should work exactly like the config 
Element works now.


On 09.12.2016 11:18, Achim Nierbeck wrote:
> I'm not really sure I like the bundle approach,
> it has some down-sides.
> Especially in the context of Karaf, the external configuration via the etc
> folder is well known and works reliable.
> I know it's a bit cumbersome if "NO" extra config is needed, but especially
> in a dev/ops separated environment (still the most-commonly-used) ops
> people just need to adapt the configurations.
> How is an Update handled? When will the bundle-based or the etc-based
> config be used?
> It's ok for environments like the enroute one, where the result is a
> self-contained all-in-one executable jar with no extras like
> what we have in a container with Karaf.
> regards, Achim

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect

View raw message