accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: client config files
Date Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:07:50 GMT
I absolutely DO think they should be combined in a properties file
located in $HOME/.accumulo/config
I absolutely DO NOT think this client configuration should be
exclusive to the shell, and I absolutely DO NOT think it should be

I would love to see all our clients/client code use
commons-configuration to hold properties from the properties file, so
that only a --config parameter is needed (with reasonable defaults, so
even that is not absolutely necessary). I also think that every
property that can exist in the file should be possible to override on
the command-line. I personally prefer to use system properties, using
commons-configuration's HierarchicalConfiguration, but jcommander may
make it easier to do the same thing in a slightly different way.

Christopher L Tubbs II

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Michael Berman <> wrote:
> As part of SSL, we need to introduce configuration so accumulo clients
> (such as ZooKeeperInstance) can find trust stores.  It seems like this has
> a lot in common with shell config files in ACCUMULO-1397.  Do people think
> these should be combined, or should the shell have its own separate config?
>  I was imagining a simple java .properties-style key=value list.  Does this
> seem reasonable?  Or should the format be more like the xml of the site
> config?  I was also imagining looking through a list of files that would
> each override settings, perhaps in the following order (from lowest to
> highest priority):
> /etc/accumulo/client.conf
> $ACCUMULO_HOME/conf/client.conf
> $HOME/.accumulo/config
> --client-config command line switch for shell or explicit parameter passed
> to ZooKeeperInstance
> Does this sound good to y'all?  Should the explicit switch/parameter have
> per-property override semantics, or should it just be used as the exclusive
> source of properties if specified?
> Mike Drob, are you actively working on the shell side of this already?  I
> see that bug is assigned to you...
> Thanks,
> Michael

View raw message