On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
I didn't realize that I am responding to openejb-dev list :o( .
Ignore my
post on adding geronimo to the filename.
No sweat :) No harm no foul. Substitute openejb for geronimo and
it's still a good suggestion worth talking about.
Q: "Should we add openejb to the filename and call it openejb-
system.properties?"
I thought about that and two thoughts come to mind:
- The first is that we'd be adding all the properties to the
actual System.getProperties properties instance, so it's really not
openejb specific at all. People could use it to add any properties
to their apps or other systems we use like OpenJPA or ActiveMQ.
Seems just about every library we use has at least one system
property of some kind that can be configured.
- The second thought is that we *do* have an OpenEJB-specific
properties instance that kind of conflicts with the vm's system
property concept. There is an object SystemInstance which as a set
of properties and that thing is more or less classloader scoped (i.e.
there can be several of them in a vm, one for each OpenEJB
instance). For example in our Tomcat integration you can have one
OpenEJB container system embedded in each webapp and they'll be
completely isolated from each other and not bump into each other at
all (this is an alternate to the global style tomcat integration).
In that scenario each webapp gets it's own openejb.conf file and
could have it's own openejb.properties file too, but those properties
couldn't be added to the System.getProperties() instance as then each
webapp would be overwriting every other webapp's data in what is
supposed to be an isolated environment. All the properties would be
OpenEJB specific is they won't be in the System.getProperties()
instance and only in the openejb-specific SystemInstance.getProperties
() instance, so you wouldn't be able to use it to configure anything
third-party libs as they're unlikely to check there.
Other thoughts welcome as always. Better solutions are made from
trading alternate ideas, so be brave and post your thinking if you
sees other solutions (that's always on the table and strongly
encouraged).
And thanks, Vamsi, a very good question regardless!
-David
Thanks,
Vamsi
On 2/8/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
> Should we add geronimo to the filename and call it
> geronimo-system.properties?
The system property override feature has been around since OpenEJB
1.x (e.g. it's not a geronimo thing).
Ted Kirby posted a proposal and patch recently for similar
functionality in Geronimo. Check out: http://
marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=116916235600001&r=1&w=2
-David
>
> Vamsi
>
> On 2/8/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, throwing out another idea. We've got a number of things
that can
>> be configured via system properties. What do people think about
>> having a file called system.properties we put in the conf/
directory
>> where people can put any properties they want and we will read
them
>> in and add them to System.getProperties().
>>
>> This would be in addition to the ability people already have to
>> properties added to the system properties via -D args. E.g.
>>
>> ./bin/openejb start -Dfoo=bar
>>
>> We'd probably want the -D args to be applied after we read in the
>> system.properties file so anything on the command line would win.
>>
>> We have a ton of things we can do with system properties
already. I
>> started to write them into this email but moved it into a new
>> confluence page as it was too big :)
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/OPENEJB/system-properties.html
>>
>> See this related jira (OPENEJB-451)
>>
>> Not to mention people may want to add their own properties for
their
>> apps. See a related idea (OPENEJB-457)
>>
>> So what do people think? Thumbs up? Thumbs down? <Insert your
>> thoughts here>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>>
