> I don't like this option, because it creates issues: > > * copy-paste is always problematic (yes, my option O1 has then > same issues)
If Bertrand's proposal of using multiple runmodes in the folder name.... > * merging two tree structures creates additional issues with > respect to ordering and expected behaviour (rember that a > system may be running with more than one run-mode, so this > merge is required) The same merging has to be done for O2. Maybe if we would use approach O2 with the properties, but allow for additional folders in between that are not seen as config, we could achieve the same. And the node name of those additional runmode folders would be free to chose. > * Other than merging this is more or less the same as my > option O1 (ok, that's not really a reason for dislike but ;-) ) Then you end up with a bunch of configs (eg. via jcrinstall) like config.runmode1 => mapping.location = /etc/map/runmode1 config.runmode2 => mapping.location = /etc/map/runmode2 etc. that cry for automation ;-) Regards, Alex -- Alexander Klimetschek alexander.klimetsc...@day.com
