We are removing the "?" in the syntax and continue on this route of
implementation: className followed by the json representation of the
properties to initialize the class.
A pull request has been opened regarding this:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/1327
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:38 PM,
Yes, we are debating the necessity of the "?".
-1 on the non-json syntax though. we don't want to implement a new parser
ourselves to gather the properties.
As to Nick's point about a generic solution that would cover initializing
not just Declarable, yes, the syntax itself does not lock down to
+1 for ability to pass in simple key-value pairs.
Would it be possible to loose the "?" between the class name and the json
though?
Also, since we are essentially trying to pass a java.util.Properties object
to the Declarable, would it be better if we ask the users to pass-in a
string representati
This would solve the problem of specifying the parameters for a Declarable,
but if you provided support for any valid json, you could cover other
situations as well, including those with more complicated and possibly
nested configuration. If we would ever support such scenarios in the
future, I ass
+1
Currently passing properties is supported with AsyncEventListener with
"-listener-param" option, we need make it consistent across the call-backs.
-Anil.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Jens Deppe wrote:
> This also avoids the other option of implementing this by having associated
> 'param
This also avoids the other option of implementing this by having associated
'params' options for each option which can take a Declarable, thus reducing
the proliferation of options - in particular for 'create region'.
i.e. --cache-listener AND --cache-listener-params.
Further, this json parameter
