river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: federation
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:37:06 GMT
I am on the side of "simplifying deployment" as the phrase of the hour, more than "enhance
configuration" (too).  If there was anything that I thing would make things better, it would
be a deployment environment that takes care of "things" for you with tremendously satisfying
defaults/results.  I know that Dennis has focused on deployment and lifecycle in Rio, with
management as a strong contender for the top spot.  Those things, for me, are the big barriers.
 Configuration "issues" are just an artifact of deployment management.  Keeping configuration
in the realm of deployment is, for me, the right place.  What annotations might bring to the
table, is documenting the usage of configurable items in  a way that is "exporting" that knowledge
to the user of the software.

I've read over a lot of "Javadoc" configuration details, over the years.  One of the things
that I remember doing early on, was do copy and paste of "keywords" out of javadoc into my
configuration files, because they needed to be spelled correctly, and I didn't want that to
be a simple mistake, which can lead to unexpected or intractable behaviors.

From my perspective, it seems that the most predominate step forward that we might take, would
be to make all configuration used in services be visible to tooling on the outside which could
then guide the deployment much more dependably and accelerate this small but currently oh
so fragile set of steps toward getting River up and running in your environment.


On Sep 25, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.reedy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
> Not sure I follow. My comment was simply stating that from my experience developers are
less interested in annotations that support configuration then annotations that support lifecycle.
Providing acceptable defaults for things like exporters allow developers to get up & running
easier (and I thought that was the whole purpose behind your effort) allows that.
> Regards
> Dennis
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 821AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>> On 25-09-12 12:46, Dennis Reedy wrote:
>>> Certainly getting a service "working" is important, but wouldn't providing acceptable
defaults be easier?
>> And if you want to deviate from the default, for a very small part of the services,
how would you implement this? Provide a annotation reference to a Configuration component
name, allow Configuration to introspect for specific deviations?
>> -- 
>> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
>> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

View raw message