You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@karaf.apache.org by Ronny Bräunlich <r....@gmail.com> on 2015/01/03 20:38:29 UTC
Re: Sharing configuration with Cellar
Hello Jean-Baptiste,
did you make the change so that the factoryPid gets shared?
If yes, do I have to set a certain property?
Cheers,
Ronny
Am 23.12.2014 um 08:38 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>:
Hi Ronny,
No, it mean that the PID are normally created on the fly right ? So locally to one node.
Let me build a SNAPSHOT without the factoryPid filtering, you will be able to test it. I keep you posted.
Regards
JB
On 12/23/2014 08:28 AM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
> Hi Jean-Baptiste,
>
> I was using version 3.0.0 and I don't mind using a SNAPSHOT versionsince
> it's only my free time project ;)
>
> So, what you're saying is, that it would be better if a bundle would
> create the properties and pass them to the configuration admin than a
> *.cfg file in the /etc directory?
>
> Cheers,
> Ronny
>
> 2014-12-23 8:10 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> <ma...@nanthrax.net>>:
>
> Hi Ronny,
>
> which version of Cellar do you use ?
>
> Do you mind to make a quick test with a SNAPSHOT ?
>
> Basically, the reason for filtering the factoryPid is that normally,
> they are local to a node (they are created locally), so not sure if
> it makes sense to sync it as it should be created by the bundle/factory.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
>
> On 12/23/2014 07:04 AM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
>
> Hi Achmin, hi Jean-Baptiste,
>
> thank you for your quick responses.
> Please, you could explain to me why the service.factoryPid was
> excluded and why you think that I shouldn't use a config-factory?
>
> What I try to achive is that on one Karaf instance the service gets
> configured and the ManagedServiceFactory on every Karaf creates the
> same service. That ways I hope to achieve better scaling (at
> least in
> my mind ;) ) because the service exists several times.
>
> Cheers,
> Ronny
>
> PS. Happy holidays guys!
>
> 2014-12-22 21:22 GMT+01:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> <jb@nanthrax.net <ma...@nanthrax.net>>:
>
> Hi Ronny,
>
> as you can see in the Cellar ConfigurationSupport:
>
> private static String[] EXCLUDED_PROPERTIES =
> {"service.factoryPid",
> "felix.fileinstall.filename", "felix.fileinstall.dir",
> "felix.fileinstall.tmpdir",
> "org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.__defaultRepositories"};
>
> The service.factoryPid is not sync by Cellar: it's an
> expected behavior
> as it doesn't make sense to sync it: the main configuration
> should
> create the pid.
>
> I created a Jira to let the user configure the excluded
> properties (as
> his own risk).
>
> If your configuration is a regular conf, it should be sync
> without
> problem by Cellar. I don't think it's a good idea to sync
> config factory
> (and use config factory generally speaking ;))
>
> Let me implement the command to allow you to change the excluded
> properties.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 12/22/2014 09:10 PM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I know I already had some similar question but I think I
> am getting
> closer to the real problem.
> There is an example project, too, which you can find here:
> https://github.com/__rbraeunlich/karaf-managed-__service-factory-example
> <https://github.com/rbraeunlich/karaf-managed-service-factory-example>
>
> Basically I have two Karaf instances synchronized with
> the help of
> Cellar.
> In the etc/ directory I placed a file
> named de.blogspot.wrongtracks.__simple.factory.Factory-1.cfg
> The log of the first Karaf shows the expected log entries:
> "Got pid:
> de.blogspot.wrongtracks.__simple.factory.Factory.__6b9773c4-a828-4ddc-bbdc-__ecbdd99535cb
> with following dictionary.“
> Unfortunately, the second Karaf doesn’t want to
> participate. The
> configuration arrived (visible via config:list
> "(service.pid=de.blogspot*)“ but no log entries are visible.
> Shouldn’t the second factory write the log entries, too?
>
> Cheers,
> Ronny
>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Sharing configuration with Cellar
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Hey Ronny,
I did the change to let you tweak the property that you want to exclude.
I push and publish a SNAPSHOT for you.
Regards
JB
On 01/03/2015 08:38 PM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
> Hello Jean-Baptiste,
>
> did you make the change so that the factoryPid gets shared?
> If yes, do I have to set a certain property?
>
> Cheers,
> Ronny
>
> Am 23.12.2014 um 08:38 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> <ma...@nanthrax.net>>:
>
> Hi Ronny,
>
> No, it mean that the PID are normally created on the fly right ? So
> locally to one node.
>
> Let me build a SNAPSHOT without the factoryPid filtering, you will be
> able to test it. I keep you posted.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 12/23/2014 08:28 AM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
>> Hi Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>> I was using version 3.0.0 and I don't mind using a SNAPSHOT versionsince
>> it's only my free time project ;)
>>
>> So, what you're saying is, that it would be better if a bundle would
>> create the properties and pass them to the configuration admin than a
>> *.cfg file in the /etc directory?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ronny
>>
>> 2014-12-23 8:10 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
>> <ma...@nanthrax.net>
>> <ma...@nanthrax.net>>:
>>
>> Hi Ronny,
>>
>> which version of Cellar do you use ?
>>
>> Do you mind to make a quick test with a SNAPSHOT ?
>>
>> Basically, the reason for filtering the factoryPid is that normally,
>> they are local to a node (they are created locally), so not sure if
>> it makes sense to sync it as it should be created by the
>> bundle/factory.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2014 07:04 AM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
>>
>> Hi Achmin, hi Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>> thank you for your quick responses.
>> Please, you could explain to me why the service.factoryPid was
>> excluded and why you think that I shouldn't use a config-factory?
>>
>> What I try to achive is that on one Karaf instance the service gets
>> configured and the ManagedServiceFactory on every Karaf creates the
>> same service. That ways I hope to achieve better scaling (at
>> least in
>> my mind ;) ) because the service exists several times.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ronny
>>
>> PS. Happy holidays guys!
>>
>> 2014-12-22 21:22 GMT+01:00, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> <jb@nanthrax.net <ma...@nanthrax.net>>:
>>
>> Hi Ronny,
>>
>> as you can see in the Cellar ConfigurationSupport:
>>
>> private static String[] EXCLUDED_PROPERTIES =
>> {"service.factoryPid",
>> "felix.fileinstall.filename", "felix.fileinstall.dir",
>> "felix.fileinstall.tmpdir",
>> "org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn.__defaultRepositories"};
>>
>> The service.factoryPid is not sync by Cellar: it's an
>> expected behavior
>> as it doesn't make sense to sync it: the main configuration
>> should
>> create the pid.
>>
>> I created a Jira to let the user configure the excluded
>> properties (as
>> his own risk).
>>
>> If your configuration is a regular conf, it should be sync
>> without
>> problem by Cellar. I don't think it's a good idea to sync
>> config factory
>> (and use config factory generally speaking ;))
>>
>> Let me implement the command to allow you to change the
>> excluded
>> properties.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> On 12/22/2014 09:10 PM, Ronny Bräunlich wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I know I already had some similar question but I think I
>> am getting
>> closer to the real problem.
>> There is an example project, too, which you can find here:
>> https://github.com/__rbraeunlich/karaf-managed-__service-factory-example
>> <https://github.com/rbraeunlich/karaf-managed-service-factory-example>
>>
>> Basically I have two Karaf instances synchronized with
>> the help of
>> Cellar.
>> In the etc/ directory I placed a file
>> named
>> de.blogspot.wrongtracks.__simple.factory.Factory-1.cfg
>> The log of the first Karaf shows the expected log entries:
>> "Got pid:
>>
>> de.blogspot.wrongtracks.__simple.factory.Factory.__6b9773c4-a828-4ddc-bbdc-__ecbdd99535cb
>> with following dictionary.“
>> Unfortunately, the second Karaf doesn’t want to
>> participate. The
>> configuration arrived (visible via config:list
>> "(service.pid=de.blogspot*)“ but no log entries are
>> visible.
>> Shouldn’t the second factory write the log entries, too?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ronny
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net/>
>> Talend -http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> jbonofre@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>
>> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net/>
>> Talend -http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbonofre@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> http://blog.nanthrax.net <http://blog.nanthrax.net/>
> Talend -http://www.talend.com <http://www.talend.com/>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com