polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kent SĂžlvsten <kent.soelvs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Configuration structure
Date Mon, 29 May 2017 17:23:43 GMT
I think it is a very good idea.

As long as we retain an opt-out possibility to avoid accessing the
system-properties (reasons to avoid them could either be "pureness" reasons
or the presence of a securitymanager).

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:

> The least intrusive implementation of this is to take out the exception
> thrown on org/apache/polygene/api/composite/PropertyMapper.java:117. Then
> add the backup for the two maps mentioned above, with some
> strategy/priority.
>
> Niclas
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > at the moment, the content of the properties file drives what is expected
> > in the ConfigurationComposite. If there are more properties than there
> are
> > declared and matching Proprety<> methods, then there is an Exception.
> >
> > This might have been rational back in the days when this was discussed
> > first time, but if we are heading towards supporting external and perhaps
> > more exotic configuration "supply-chains", then I think it would be more
> > logical that the ConfigurationComposite simply reads what it wants and
> > ignores everything else.
> >
> > AND then would could have this super cool addition that if no files are
> > found that works, fall back to System.getProperties() and
> System.getenv() as
> > the final backups.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message