Romain, I can barely parse your sentences. So I hope to interpret them correctly.
> > If you dont manage see them at all for merging (or their key-value > pairs if not them directly) then you cant merge correctly. This is just not true. One can even mathematically prove this. You might have missed that it is possible to even 'blacklist' properties in some higher level ConfigSource. > Issue is: if system is too complex or doesnt solve it then Properties > (or more exactly Map<String, String>) is clearly more efficient But a ConfigSource IS a Map<String, String>... LieGrue, strub > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 13:22, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you dont manage see them at all for merging (or their key-value > pairs if not them directly) then you cant merge correctly. I saw it > several times and finally bypassed something very close to DS - enough > time to care about it. > > Issue is: if system is too complex or doesnt solve it then Properties > (or more exactly Map<String, String>) is clearly more efficient: no > abstraction, can be changed easily when aggregating apps etc... > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau > http://www.tomitribe.com > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > 2014-12-28 12:47 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >>> I m fully ok to remove PropertySource from the API >> >> I think we've lost each other. >> >> Tamaya PropertySource == DeltaSpike ConfigSource basically. >> You just cannot remove this without ditching the whole project. >> >> The point is that a USER never operates directly with the ConfigSources. > They are a hidden detail. IF you manually manage them in your application > then > you end up with exactly your problem - you are doomed and cannot simply > enhance > your system but you really need to rework all the applications. >> >> If you just say ConfigResolver#getPropertyValue("mykey") and rely > on the ordinal mechanism then you can just add such a FilteringConfigSource > as > JAR without having to touch any of your code. If you did manage/merge/etc > your > PropertySources manually then you are doomed. That's why I don't like > that approach. >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 12:22, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Would have been the same since the app is PropertySource aware. > Can also >>> mean we dont have PropertySource in a default impl and then it is true > it >>> is easy. I m fully ok to remove PropertySource from the API and make it > an >>> impl detail. >>> Le 28 déc. 2014 11:59, "Mark Struberg" > <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> But if you would have had this container wide > 'AdminConfigSource' >>> with the >>>> nice gui, or a installation wide DatabaesConfigSource then it > would not >>>> have been a problem, right? >>>> >>>> I mean you would have to add this filter to all the 100 apps in > the 1 day >>>> as well, right? So it would be the exact same effort to just add 1 >>>> FilteringConfigSource (hacky but works) with a high priority > either, right? >>>> That would be just adding a single jar to all your lib folders... >>>> >>>> >>>> Sometimes we tend to add new mechanisms out of blindness. But the > problem >>>> often can be solved easily with existing tools - we just often > don't >>> see >>>> them. This happens to me as well, but I'm glad to have really > brilliant >>>> co-workers which often stop me from doing overly complicated crazy > things. >>>> Happens more often than I like it ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course sometimes we really need to add a new mechanism. But > this should >>>> only be the (almost) last resort if there is no other acceptable > way. >>>> >>>> There are just sooo many weirdo cases out there. Of course they > are often >>>> needed in production. But for such huge installations you will > barely find >>>> 2 companies with the exact same situation... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe I'm alone here but my goal is to make the 90-95% >>> 'standard' use >>>> cases as easy as possible out of the box. And _additionally_ have > an SPI >>>> layer which is very deep down to the metal and as flexible as > possible to >>>> allow solving more complex edge cases. >>>> >>>> And I honestly don't care if a programmer does need to write > 50 lines >>> more >>>> for such a seldom case. It's just impossible to solve every > problem out >>> of >>>> the box. That would blow up Tamaya 10x times (or even more). And > that would >>>> make it unfriendly (if not even 'unusable') for the 95% > standard >>> cases... >>>> >>>> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> strub >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 11:41, Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >T hat is exactly the difference between real life and > theory. You >>> cant >>>> ask >>>> > to change 100 apps in 1 day...you have to live with >>>> > >>>> > Le 28 déc. 2014 10:33, "Mark Struberg" >>> <[email protected]> a >>>> > écrit : >>>> > >>>> >> I don't get your samples Romain. >>>> >> >>>> >> In v1 you have configured keys A,B,C >>>> >> In v2 you have D. So what? >>>> >> >>>> >> Just remove A,B,C and use D instead. That's exactly > the same >>> like >>>> > changing >>>> >> a table structure. >>>> >> >>>> >> Doing some 'translation' just because the ops > guys >>> don't want >>>> > to change >>>> >> configuration is a total dead end and will end up being > a >>> maintenance >>>> >> nightmare in v3++. Your filter mechanism is just an > utter ugly >>> hack >>>> and if >>>> >> I would be the manager of this project then I'd call > you >>> names ;) >>>> >> >>>> >> That's like arguing that maven is not usable because > it makes >>> scripting >>>> >> hard. This is a FEATURE and not a bug!. People should > not script >>>> builds! If >>>> >> they like to do complicated stuff then it's very > easy to >>> write plugins. >>>> > In >>>> >> our case it's very easy to write ConfigSources. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Remember the old saying "dirty remains, while quick > is long >>>> > forgotten" >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > Some config can conflict >>>> >> >>>> >> No. That's the same like with JNDI, JMX etc. Just > tell them >>> to use >>>> > their >>>> >> own namespaces and you are done. >>>> >> That's like saying Java is not good because if I > have >>> multiple JARs >>>> > which >>>> >> contain the same ClassName then it doesn't work. > JUST USE >>> NAMESPACES. >>>> > You >>>> >> don't need any explicit merging. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Oki, that was 2 arguments and both of them are actually >>> non-problems. >>>> >> >>>> >> Cmon folks, give me more use cases and examples. I'm > ready to >>> solve >>>> > them ;) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> LieGrue, >>>> >> strub >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sunday, 28 December 2014, 9:54, Romain Manni-Bucau > < >>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >Well more I read more I think there is a real need > but we are >>> all >>>> wrong >>>> >> so instead of fighting please help us finding a > solution. >>>> >> >@Mark: priorities or ordinal are great while you > completely >>> own the >>>> app >>>> >> and its config + it is a single technical version. I > guess you >>> know it >>>> is >>>> >> not always (rarely?) The case in medium and big > projects. >>>> >> >A sample can be: v1 you configure an url with host, > port >>> propertkes >>>> and >>>> >> in v2 it is directly the url cause you added a path. Can > be the >>> same >>>> for >>>> >> datasource and business config etc... >>>> >> >What I did in practise was to use a filter mecanism > but it >>> was an ugly >>>> >> hack. >>>> >> >For such cases you can maybe use PropertySource > translators >>> or things >>>> >> like that to ensure the config is in the right format > and then >>> merge >>>> with >>>> >> ordinal. >>>> >> >Now let take the case where you package together > several sub >>> apps >>>> > coming >>>> >> with their config. How do you do? Some config can > conflict and >>> the >>>> >> selection is not ordinal based - let me guess it will be > the >>> same. >>>> Best is >>>> >> to have both property sources and merge them into a > single one. >>> Kind of >>>> >> Properties merge(Properties current, PropertySource > next). >>>> >> >I am not happy with these solutions but the needs > are here >>> and not >>>> >> something thought but really met - even if I dont have > your >>>> experiences. >>>> >> >Point is we cant assume config will be perfect so > let our >>> future users >>>> >> make errors and be able to fix it easily. >>>> >> >Le 27 déc. 2014 14:50, "Mark Struberg" >>>> > <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> No Anatole, I DO get it, but I really think it > is a bad >>> idea. >>>> > Because >>>> >> it adds way too much complexity or a very limited > benefit. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Think about it in an analogy to the > ExpressionLanguage >>> ELResolver >>>> >> chain. Of course this is a sorted lookup chain. And this > list is >>> fixed! >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> And at runtime you cannot change the order and > the user >>> also does >>>> > not >>>> >> care! >>>> >> >> All he cares is that #{user.name} does the > right >>> thing. He >>>> > does not >>>> >> have to express an 'evaluator' and the chain > ordering for >>> each and >>>> > every EL >>>> >> invocation. It just does not make any sense from a users >>> perspective. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> LieGrue, >>>> >> >> strub >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Saturday, 27 December 2014, 14:17, Anatole > Tresch >>> < >>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Hi Mark >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >2014-12-27 12:56 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg >>>> > <[email protected]>: >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> The mechanism is clumsy and implies >>>> >> >> >>> constraints that are already known > as of >>> now not >>>> > matching all use >>>> >> cases. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Tell me some limitations. Never had > one. So just >>> enlist >>>> > them here and >>>> >> now. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >And I am working since decades as well in > the >>> industry. I >>>> > will not >>>> >> argue about use cases. I gave you same examples. You > have the >>> stand my >>>> >> opinion, unless you feel your opinion counts more than > mine. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> On top of it the priority leaks into > the >>> PropertySource >>>> > API >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Because it IS part of the > PropertySource! >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >But it shoud not. I want to have my > property >>> sources and I >>>> > want to >>>> >> combine them they way I want it. I want the concern of > assembly >>> being >>>> >> separated from the source itself. >>>> >> >> >It is like you write a Java program like > this: >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >2: { >>>> >> >> >4: } >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >3: System.out.println(); >>>> >> >> >1: for(int i=0;i<10;i11) >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Shows pretty much the nonsense of your >>> argumentation. For >>>> > priorizing >>>> >> the loading of components in CDI priorities are great > and >>> sufficient, >>>> here >>>> >> they are not. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> Finally functions is the >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> modern way of modelling such an > operation. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>If you have a hammer... >>>> >> >> >>I'm not interested in style if it >>> doesn't add any >>>> > real benefit. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >If the hammer is more elegant and powerful > but >>> still easy >>>> > than you >>>> >> outstyled solution, let it be a hammer! >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >>> different or >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> partial overridings (common in > complex >>> environments) >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Never came across this need and I did > very >>> complex >>>> > projects. It's >>>> >> always a trade off between an easy straight forward > algorigthm >>> which >>>> are >>>> >> easy to understand but sometimes you have to bend em a > bit or >>> program >>>> your >>>> >> own (PropertySource). The other option is to have hugely > complex >>> base >>>> >> mechanism which noone can use in practice because it is > 'too >>>> > flexible' - >>>> >> means not clear and straight enough. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> you will never get one solution, > which a >>> special type >>>> > of >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> overridings that matches all > users. >>>> >> >> >>Oh sure we do. By having the > ConfigSource define >>> their >>>> > ordinal >>>> >> themselves and it being really easy for a programmer to > add own >>>> >> ConfigSources we have all of that! >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> A solution should NEVER constraint > users in >>> doing the >>>> > stuff >>>> >> >> >>> they want!* >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Having the sorting via Ordinal > doesn't >>> impose any >>>> > restriction on the >>>> >> user. Because he can easily overwrite those values. >>>> >> >> >>We are talking about a simple straight > forward >>> config >>>> > mechanism and >>>> >> not about alien rocket science and time travelling. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>You are not on green field here! >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Oh boy, we are! We just need to fulfil > user >>> needs, >>>> > that's all. >>>> >> >> >I am not a boy. I am an adult with 44 years > on >>> track.... ! >>>> >> >> >And BTW you seem to have lost every kind of > reality >>> contact. >>>> > Do you >>>> >> really think companies will change their internal > systems >>> completely >>>> >> because just a few guys think they know >>>> >> >> >how the world is rouling...? NO! >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> *Of course not! (despite the fact > that is >>> trivial >>>> > for the ones >>>> >> used the >>>> >> >> >>> functional style of Java 8). >>>> >> >> >>Of course I know Map#merge, but what do > you use >>> it for? To >>>> > me it >>>> >> seems like an overkill. >>>> >> >> >Seems that your mindis still stick on Java > 7.,,, >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >> You can still provide a singleton with >>>> >> >> >>> constants, where you* >>>> >> >> >>> *provide the most common > combinations, see >>>> > AggregationPolicy in my >>>> >> the >>>> >> >> >>> current tree.* >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>Again: I don't see the benefit. If > I'm >>> in an EAR >>>> > and like to get my >>>> >> "documentarchive.endpoint.url" then WHY would > I like to >>> manually >>>> > change the >>>> >> aggregation? Makes no sense to me. And this increases > the >>> complexity >>>> quite >>>> >> impressively. >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Perhaps one day you realize that we are > talking >>> about a >>>> > general >>>> >> configuration soultion. EE is a sepcial case, not the > other way >>> round. >>>> It >>>> >> is NOT like Deltaspike, which benefits the mechanism > provided by >>> CDI. >>>> It is >>>> >> not and if it will, it gets Deltaspike 2, which is > useless. There >>> is >>>> >> already one, which for its purposes on this level, I > agree, works >>>> well. But >>>> >> for a general solution it lacks so much on > functionality- >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >I personally really think you still do not > get the >>>> > difference! It >>>> >> drives me crazy. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >LieGrue, >>>> >> >> >>strub >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> On Saturday, 27 December 2014, > 12:28, >>> Anatole Tresch >>>> > < >>>> >> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>> > *See inline...* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> 2014-12-27 11:42 GMT+01:00 Mark > Struberg >>>> > <[email protected]>: >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi! >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> 1.1) >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> I think we agree that having > a >>>> > PropertySource/ConfigSource SPI >>>> >> with MANY >>>> >> >> >>>> implementations is the way to > go? >>>> >> >> >>>> Any objections? >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> *+1 The way to go.* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> 1.2) >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> Where should it belong to? Is > it an >>> API or >>>> > rather an SPI? >>>> >> >> >>>> I think it's more the > later. A end >>> user just >>>> > likes to get the >>>> >> >> >>> 'final' >>>> >> >> >>>> configured values and does > NOT deal >>> with the >>>> > PropertySources >>>> >> himself. It is >>>> >> >> >>>> really just for extending the > system >>> -> SPI. >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> *+1 for PropertySource being an > SPI. >>> Configuration >>>> > must be the >>>> >> API.* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> 1.3) >>>> >> >> >>>> Merging. >>>> >> >> >>>> Option (1.3.a) Do we like to > do >>>> > 'implicit' merging (aka the >>>> >> >> >>> ordinal >>>> >> >> >>>> stuff). >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> *It's not a question of taste. > The >>> mechanism is >>>> > clumsy and implies >>>> >> >> >>> constraints that are already known > as of >>> now not >>>> > matching all use >>>> >> cases. On >>>> >> >> >>> top of it the priority leaks into > the >>> PropertySoiurce >>>> > API (as an >>>> >> additional >>>> >> >> >>> method, which is a very ugly mix > of >>> concerns), >>>> > Finally functions is >>>> >> the >>>> >> >> >>> modern way of modelling such an > operation.* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> Option (1.3.b) Or do we like >>> 'explicit' >>>> > (the merge function). What >>>> >> >> >>> benefit >>>> >> >> >>>> does this add in practice? >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> *See above and as outlined > multiple times. >>> Adding >>>> > additional >>>> >> functionality >>>> >> >> >>> for audit (e.g. logging of the >>> configuration >>>> > overriding), different >>>> >> or >>>> >> >> >>> partial overridings (common in > complex >>> environments). >>>> > Please stop >>>> >> >> >>> discussion on this priority thing, > it's >>> simply >>>> > not enough! By the >>>> >> way the >>>> >> >> >>> priority thing can still be > implemented, >>> when the >>>> > rest of the >>>> >> design is >>>> >> >> >>> done in a modular way. My proposed > solution >>> gave you >>>> > the >>>> >> abtrsaction of a >>>> >> >> >>> ConfigProvider BTW, where you > could do this >>> easily, >>>> > but also the >>>> >> other >>>> >> >> >>> stuff. What you do depends on the > use case, >>> and to >>>> > some extent your >>>> >> >> >>> personal taste. A solution should > NEVER >>> constraint >>>> > users in doing >>>> >> the stuff >>>> >> >> >>> they want!* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> Ad 1.3.a 'explicit' > merging: This >>> is >>>> > basically the DeltaSpike mode: >>>> >> EACH >>>> >> >> >>>> ConfigSource (PropertySource) > has an >>> ordinal >>>> > which it can set >>>> >> itself. The >>>> >> >> >>>> higher the configuration > ordinal of >>> the >>>> > ConfigSource, the more >>>> >> important it >>>> >> >> >>>> is and it will override > values from >>>> > ConfigSources with lower >>>> >> ordinal. >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> That way it is possible to > have a kind >>> of >>>> > 'default configuration' >>>> >> >> >>> e.g. in >>>> >> >> >>>> a property file inside your > project >>> and later >>>> > overwrite it via >>>> >> -Dxxx=yyy, >>>> >> >> >>>> JNDI, or some container > provided >>>> > MyCountainerAdminConfigSource >>>> >> etc later. >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> *No Mark. The fact of having a > default >>> configuration >>>> > does not >>>> >> interconnect >>>> >> >> >>> how this is evaluated and > composed. You are >>> wrong! >>>> > And on top, >>>> >> when I look >>>> >> >> >>> at your ideas: you will never get > one >>> solution, which >>>> > a special >>>> >> type of >>>> >> >> >>> overridings that matches all > users. You >>> have to >>>> > provide building >>>> >> blocks >>>> >> >> >>> (one more) that helps the users > (companies) >>> to model >>>> > their >>>> >> functionality >>>> >> >> >>> with it. You are not on green > field here!* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> Ad 1.3.b 'implicit' > merging: Well, >>> actually I >>>> > don't got this. There >>>> >> >> >>> was >>>> >> >> >>>> merge(String key, > PropertySource s1, >>> s2), but >>>> > that would mean >>>> >> that every >>>> >> >> >>>> user needs to deal with that > himself? >>> Could you >>>> > please elaborate >>>> >> on that >>>> >> >> >>>> option? I didn't get it.. >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> *Of course not! (despite the fact > that is >>> trivial >>>> > for the ones >>>> >> used the >>>> >> >> >>> functional style of Java 8). You > can still >>> provide a >>>> > singleton with >>>> >> >> >>> constants, where you* >>>> >> >> >>> *provide the most common > combinations, see >>>> > AggregationPolicy in my >>>> >> the >>>> >> >> >>> current tree.* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> *-Anatole* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> LieGrue, >>>> >> >> >>>> strub >>>> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> -- >>>> >> >> >>> *Anatole Tresch* >>>> >> >> >>> Java Engineer & Architect, JSR > Spec >>> Lead >>>> >> >> >>> Glärnischweg 10 >>>> >> >> >>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, > GMT+1* >>>> >> >> >>> *Twitter: @atsticks* >>>> >> >> >>> *Blogs: >>> **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ >>>> >> >> >>> >>> <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>* >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>> *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 > 344 62 79* >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >-- >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Anatole Tresch >>>> >> >> >Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec > Lead >>>> >> >> >Glärnischweg 10 >>>> >> >> >CH - 8620 Wetzikon >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1 >>>> >> >> >Twitter: @atsticks >>>> >> >> >Blogs: http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ >>>> >> >> >Google: atsticks >>>> >> >> >Mobile +41-76 344 62 79 >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >
