geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Planning to cut Config & Safeguard This Week
Date Tue, 02 Jan 2018 07:50:28 GMT
yes and no, what is true is a java 9 lib must have module SPI and
META-INF/services registration*s* but you also have optional imports so
this is still true. That said a fallback on system properties (hardcoded i
mean) works for me. Just don't want to enforce [config] to be here.

Looking that now, will report soon


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>

2018-01-01 22:59 GMT+01:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, idea was to use config if there in right version and skip it with an
>> info log if not. Will try to check tmr. Thanks for the pointer.
>>
>
> No, it's not quite that. Honestly, with Java 9 and what not I'm a bit
> worried with that kind of approach since class importing is no longer
> behaving the same way.  I went with a ServiceLoader approach, this way even
> app servers can come up with their own configuration mechanism independent
> of MP.
>
>
>>
>> Le 1 janv. 2018 18:51, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> You mean for safeguard?  If so its already there.  I do want to move it
>>> to a separate JAR so maybe OOTB we have a system property backed version?
>>>
>>> Take a look for ConfigFacade and MicroProfileConfigFacade.
>>>
>>> On Jan 1, 2018 12:37 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any hope to have mp config optional before? Was planning to do it
>>>> before Xmas but didnt get a chance yet to code it. Can try later this week
>>>> probably.
>>>>
>>>> Le 1 janv. 2018 17:19, "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 go for it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Safeguard requires a Config 1.2 implementation to run, since
Config
>>>>>> 1.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geronimo-config-1.1  is microprofile-config 1.2, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  Between the bugs found in the impl and the spec issues I saw,
>>>>> GConfig 1.0 ended up implementing MP Config 1.1.  I think only IBM shipped
>>>>> an impl of just Config 1.0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LieGrue,
>>>>>> strub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Am 01.01.2018 um 16:34 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
>>>>>> >:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hey guys
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Just pushed up the last of the changes for Safeguard to make
it
>>>>>> pass Fault Tolerance 1.0's TCK.  There's a small change I still want
to
>>>>>> make it to allow the executor to be pluggable, and plan to have a
following
>>>>>> release soon that introduces more configurable properties.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > With that said, I'm going to plan to stage the Config 1.1 release
>>>>>> tomorrow and start testing the Safeguard release process (since this'll
be
>>>>>> the first time we're releasing a git repo).  Once that's working,
I'll plan
>>>>>> to stage that release as well.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Please note - Safeguard requires a Config 1.2 implementation
to
>>>>>> run, since Config 1.2 introduces common sense converters (for enums
in
>>>>>> particular) and Class converter built in.  I didn't want to register
a
>>>>>> custom converter.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message