+1 to having DistributionConfig look for both the "gemfire." and "geode." prefixes. +1 to having DistributionConfig look for both a "gemfire.properties" and "geode.properties" file. Since the geode flavors are newer it should look for them first and only look for the old gemfire flavor if a geode one is not found.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Kirk Lund <kl...@apache.org> wrote: > That's a bigger change and I'm not sure how you would handle backwards > compatibility for users using gemfire.properties. > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > Or better yet, we stop using properties files already. > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:55 AM Dave Barnes <dbar...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > Is there a possibility that the code might find its way into additional > > > contexts with other names? If so, perhaps we should consider a more > > generic > > > identifier, such as PRODUCT_PREFIX. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Dinesh Akhand <dines...@amdocs.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Why we are keeping gemfire in current geode 1.2 , Can we replace this > > > with > > > > GEODE > > > > File : DistributionConfig.java > > > > > > > > Current code: > > > > String GEMFIRE_PREFIX = "gemfire."; > > > > > > > > Suggestion to change: > > > > String GEODE_PREFIX = "geode."; > > > > > > > > Why do you think ? > > > > Can we go ahead and change this ? > > > > It will impact lots of files & all configuration will be now using > with > > > > geode. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dinesh Akhand > > > > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > > > > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > > > > > > > you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer < > > > > https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> > > > > > > > > > >
