You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by rd...@me.com on 2017/11/25 18:01:39 UTC
Safeguard without MP-Config?
Hey guys
Should Safeguard run even without a MP-Config implementation? I think it would be cool if it did.
Method `ExecutionPlanFactory#enableNonFallbacksForMicroProfile` looks a little bit like it tries to, but line 141 catches only `ClassNotFoundException`. If it would also catch `NoClassDefFoundError` and `ExceptionInInitializerError`, it would actually work.
I could create a pull request, but I can't see how?
Rüdiger
BTW: On http://geronimo.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/contributor-process.html there's a broken link to the mailing lists. It's falsely `http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html`, but it should be `http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html`. I don't have rights for the wiki.
Re: Safeguard without MP-Config?
Posted by rd...@me.com.
Hi John,
On 25. Nov 2017, 19:56 +0100, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>, wrote:
> Hi Rüdiger!
>
> I think it would be fine if it could operate without MP Config. I was actually thinking that configuration could be more of an SPI, rather than a hard requirement. E.g. one impl for MP Config, another for ConfigJSR, and maybe a default one with system properties enabled?
Nice! What would that SPI look like? Maybe a subset of MP config? I like the way slf4j handles the absence of an implementation: It brings it's own NOP implementation as a fallback. Maybe that's an idea for MP config, too: if there is an implementation on the classpath, use that; otherwise log an info about falling back and do the bare minimum: maybe simply no config at all, or use system properties and environment variable only.
> And you are correct, that was my strawman placeholder to solve it, but agree that it will not work 100%
The change is quite trivial to do, but I have no idea how to test it.
> If you want to create a pull request, first fork https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard then make your changes in your fork. You should then see an option in github to raise a PR.
Okay, sure. I had seen that the project on github is just a mirror of git://git.apache.org/geronimo-safeguard.git and didn't understand that I can still create pull requests. Just did.
Rüdiger
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM <rd...@me.com> wrote:
> > > Hey guys
> > >
> > > Should Safeguard run even without a MP-Config implementation? I think it would be cool if it did.
> > >
> > > Method `ExecutionPlanFactory#enableNonFallbacksForMicroProfile` looks a little bit like it tries to, but line 141 catches only `ClassNotFoundException`. If it would also catch `NoClassDefFoundError` and `ExceptionInInitializerError`, it would actually work.
> > >
> > > I could create a pull request, but I can't see how?
> > >
> > >
> > > Rüdiger
> > >
> > > BTW: On http://geronimo.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/contributor-process.html there's a broken link to the mailing lists. It's falsely `http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html`, but it should be `http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html`. I don't have rights for the wiki.
> > >
Re: Safeguard without MP-Config?
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
+1 for a spi with a default detection at boot time
Le 25 nov. 2017 19:56, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Hi Rüdiger!
>
> I think it would be fine if it could operate without MP Config. I was
> actually thinking that configuration could be more of an SPI, rather than a
> hard requirement. E.g. one impl for MP Config, another for ConfigJSR, and
> maybe a default one with system properties enabled?
>
> And you are correct, that was my strawman placeholder to solve it, but
> agree that it will not work 100%
>
> If you want to create a pull request, first fork https://github.com/
> apache/geronimo-safeguard then make your changes in your fork. You
> should then see an option in github to raise a PR.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM <rd...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys
>>
>> Should Safeguard run even without a MP-Config implementation? I think it
>> would be cool if it did.
>>
>> Method `ExecutionPlanFactory#enableNonFallbacksForMicroProfile` looks a
>> little bit like it tries to, but line 141 catches only
>> `ClassNotFoundException`. If it would also catch `NoClassDefFoundError` and
>> `ExceptionInInitializerError`, it would actually work.
>>
>> I could create a pull request, but I can't see how?
>>
>>
>> Rüdiger
>>
>> BTW: On http://geronimo.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/contributor-process.html
>> there's a broken link to the mailing lists. It's falsely `
>> http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html`
>> <http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html>, but it should be `
>> http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html`
>> <http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html>. I don't have rights for
>> the wiki.
>>
>>
Re: Safeguard without MP-Config?
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Hi Rüdiger!
I think it would be fine if it could operate without MP Config. I was
actually thinking that configuration could be more of an SPI, rather than a
hard requirement. E.g. one impl for MP Config, another for ConfigJSR, and
maybe a default one with system properties enabled?
And you are correct, that was my strawman placeholder to solve it, but
agree that it will not work 100%
If you want to create a pull request, first fork
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-safeguard then make your changes in your
fork. You should then see an option in github to raise a PR.
John
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:03 PM <rd...@me.com> wrote:
> Hey guys
>
> Should Safeguard run even without a MP-Config implementation? I think it
> would be cool if it did.
>
> Method `ExecutionPlanFactory#enableNonFallbacksForMicroProfile` looks a
> little bit like it tries to, but line 141 catches only
> `ClassNotFoundException`. If it would also catch `NoClassDefFoundError` and
> `ExceptionInInitializerError`, it would actually work.
>
> I could create a pull request, but I can't see how?
>
>
> Rüdiger
>
> BTW: On http://geronimo.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/contributor-process.html
> there's a broken link to the mailing lists. It's falsely `
> http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html`
> <http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing.html>, but it should be `
> http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html`
> <http://geronimo.apache.org/mailing-lists.html>. I don't have rights for
> the wiki.
>
>