I have some things that I can not understand.
It is config_cache from system configuration.
Whether or not to enable a configuration cache.
If enabled, the merged configuration will be cached and used in subsequent requests.
'config_cache_enabled' => $booleanValue
Now i cant understand on waht configuration he thoughts.
System Configuration
or
Application Configuration
What configuration will be cached? System or Application?
I believe this would be an Application Configuration. Such files like Module.php and autoload/* would all be cached. However if you have any type of Closures in these files then you will not be able to cache these files as it will return an error (due to closures).
I personally have a few closures in my configurations so I need to do:
'config_cache_enabled' => false
Related
The Play framework requires (by default) that you configure logging through a logback.xml file. I'd like to build my log appenders through code so I can fetch parameters at runtime (e.g. the graylog destination for the logs is fetched from the deployment environment, rather than baking it in statically through an XML file).
This sort of thing is fairly easy to achieve in Java (by overriding logging factories and the like), I wondered if the same were possible in Play.
Yes, you can configure logback programmatically, see: https://akhikhl.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/programmatic-configuration-of-slf4jlogback/
But I wouldn't recommend it. For starters it's a verbose API that isn't pleasant to work with. Beyond that, it generally nice for configuration to be declarative (even if it is in XML in this case).
For your usecase, Logback's XML does support variables which can come from System properties or Environment variables: https://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html#definingProps
However, you probably want a different config across environments (no greylog locally). I think many projects do that by specifying the logback XML location as a system property at startup: https://logback.qos.ch/manual/configuration.html#configFileProperty
Alternatively, I suspect greylog has some method of watching a file to pickup your logging. That's what we do for picking up logs in Splunk in my team. We don't want to make a change to our code when someone reconfigures Splunk/Greylog.
The solution I used in the end was to use a logback contextlistener to populate the context with the parameters pulled from the environment. The listener can be added as follows to the logback.xml:
<contextListener class="LoggerStartup"/>
The LoggerStartup can then populate the context, which I achieved through AWS SSM (see the simplified code below).
class LoggerStartup extends ContextAwareBase with LoggerContextListener with LifeCycle {
override def start() = {
val context = getContext()
val graylogUrl = ... // Go get value from remote store
context.putProperty("GRAYLOG_URL", graylogUrl)
}
}
And then referenced this context variable in the logback file:
<appender name="GELF UDP APPENDER" class="me.moocar.logbackgelf.GelfUDPAppender">
<remoteHost>${GRAYLOG_URL}</remoteHost>
...
</appender>
Spring cloud config server supports reading property files with name ${spring.application.name}.properties. However I have 2 properties files in my application.
a.properties
b.properties
Can I get the config server to read both these properties files?
Rename your properties files in git or file system where your config server is looking at.
a.properties -> <your_application_name>.properties
a.properties -> <your_application_name>-<profile-name>.properties
For example, if your application name is test and you are running your application on dev profile, below two properties will be used together.
test.properties
test-dev.properties
Also you can specify additional profiles in bootstrap.properties of your config client to retrieve more properties files like below. For example,
spring:
profiles: dev
cloud:
config:
uri: http://yourconfigserver.com:8888
profile: dev,dev-db,dev-mq
If you specify like above, below all files will be used together.
test.properties
test-dev.properties
test-dev-db.prpoerties
test-dev-mq.properties
Note that the provided answer assumes your property files address different execution profiles. If they dont, i.e., your properties are split into different files for some other reason, e.g., maintenance purposes, divided by business/functional domain, or any other reason that suits your needs, then, by defining a profile for each such file, you are just "abusing" the profile feature, for achieving your goal (multiple property files per app).
You could then ask "OK, so what is the problem with that?". The problem is that you restrain yourself from various possibilities that you would otherwise have. If you actually want to customize your application configuration by profile you will have to create pseudo, sub, profiles for that since the file name is already a profile. Example:
Your application configuration could be customized by different profiles, which you use inside your springboot application (e.g. in #Profile() annotation), let them be dev, uat, prod. You can boot your application setting different profiles as active, e.g. 'dev' vs 'uat', and get the group of properties that you desire. For your a.properties b.properties and c.properties file, if different file names were supported, you would have a-dev.properties b-dev.properties and c-dev.properties files vs a-uat.properties b-uat.properties and c-uat.properties files for 'dev' and 'uat' profile.
Nevertheless, with the provided solution, you already have defined 3 profiles for each file: appname-a.properties appname-b.properties, and appname-c.properties: a, b, and c. Now imagine you have to create a different profile for each... profile(! it already shows something goes wrong here)! you would end up with a lot of profile permutations (which would get worse as files increase): The files would be appname-a-dev.properties, appname-b-dev.properties, app-c-dev.properties vs appname-a-uat.properties, appname-b-uat.properties, app-c-uat.properties, but the profiles would have been increased from ['dev', ' uat'] to ['a-dev', 'b-dev', 'c-dev', 'a-uat', 'b-uat', 'c-uat'] !!!
Even worse, how are you going to cope with all these profiles inside your code and more specifically your #Profile() annotations? Will you clutter the code space with "artificial" profiles just because you want to add one or two more different property files? It should have been sufficient to define your dev or uat profiles, where applicable, and define somewhere else the applicable property file names (which could then be further supported by profile, without any other configuration action), just as it happens in the externalized properties configuration for individual springboot apps
For argument completeness, I will just add here that if you want to switch to .yml property files one day, with the provided profile-based naming solution, you also loose the ability to define different "yaml document sections per profile" inside the same .yml file (Yes, in .yml you can have one property file yet define multiple logical yml documents inside, which its usually done for customizing the properties for different profiles, while having all related properties in one place). You loose the ability because you have already used the profile in the file name (appname-profile.yml)
I have issued a pull request with a minor fix for spring-cloud-config-server 1.4.x, which allows defining additionally supported file names (appart from "application[-profile]" and "{appname}[-profile]", that are currently supported) by providing a spring.cloud.congif.server.searchNames environment property - analogous to spring.config.name for springboot apps. I hope it gets reviewed and accepted.
I came across the same requirement lately with a little more constraint that I am not allowed to play around the environment profiles. So I wasn't allowed to do as the accepted answer. I'm sharing how I did it as an alternative to those who might have same case as me.
In my application, I have properties such as:
appxyz-data-soures.properties
appxyz-data-soures-staging.properties
appxyz-data-soures-production.properties
appxyz-interfaces.properties
appxyz-interfaces-staging.properties
appxyz-interfaces-production.properties
appxyz-feature.properties
appxyz-feature-staging.properties
appxyz-feature-production.properties
application.properties // for my use, contains local properties only
bootstrap.properties // for my use, contains management properties only
In my application, I have these particular properties set that allow me to achieve what I needed. But note I have the rest of needed config as well (enable cloud config, actuator refresh, eureka service discovery and so on) - just highlighting these for emphasis:
spring.application.name=appxyz
spring.cloud.config.name=appxyz-data-soures,appxyz-interfaces,appxyz-feature
You can observe that I didn't want to play around my application name but instead I used it as prefix for my config property files.
In my configuration server I configured in application.yml to capture pattern: 'appxyz-*':
spring:
cloud:
config:
server:
git:
uri: <git repo default>
repos:
appxyz:
pattern: 'appxyz-*'
uri: <another git repo if you have 1 repo per app>
private-key: ${git.appxyz.pk}
strict-host-key-checking: false
ignore-local-ssh-settings: true
private-key: ${git.default.pk}
In my Git repository I have the following. No application.properties and bootstrap because I didn't want those to be published and overridden/refreshed externally but you can do if you want.
appxyz-data-soures.properties
appxyz-data-soures-staging.properties
appxyz-data-soures-production.properties
appxyz-interfaces.properties
appxyz-interfaces-staging.properties
appxyz-interfaces-production.properties
appxyz-feature.properties
appxyz-feature-staging.properties
appxyz-feature-production.properties
It will be the pattern matching pattern: 'appxyz-*' that will capture and return the matching files from my git repository. The profile will also apply and fetch the correct property file accordingly. The prioritization of value is also preserved.
Furthermore, if you wish to add more file in your application (say appxyz-circuit-breaker.properties), we only need to do:
Add the name pattern in the spring.cloud.config.name=...,appxyz-circuit-breaker
The add the copies of the file locally and also externally (in the git repo.
No need to add/modify more or restart your configuration server later on. For new application, it's like a one time registration thing to add an entry under the repos of application.yml.
Hope it helps in one way or another!
In your application bootstrap.properties, you have to specify like below:
spring.application.name=a,b
I have an issue on the script, basically I don't use any log4net or whatever and im not planning, but some resource which i access during my script i suppose has some references to this log4net, so i get this messages:
log4net:ERROR XmlConfigurator: Failed to find configuration section
'log4net' in the application's .config file. Check your .config file
for the and elements. The configuration
section should look like:
I don't really care about this, as this is also not a real error, i would prefere to somehow hide this messages from the propmpt window, is this possible?
How can I ignore this information, without too much hassle?
This message comes from the log4net internal debugging, and means that not log4net configuration information is found in the config file. What I find strange is that this kind of info is usually opt-in:
There are 2 different ways to enable internal debugging in log4net.
These are listed below. The preferred method is to specify the
log4net.Internal.Debug option in the application's config file.
Internal debugging can also be enabled by setting a value in the application's configuration file (not the log4net configuration file,
unless the log4net config data is embedded in the application's config
file). The log4net.Internal.Debug application setting must be set to
the value true. For example:
This setting is read immediately on startup an will cause all internal debugging messages to be emitted.
To enable log4net's internal debug programmatically you need to set the log4net.Util.LogLog.InternalDebugging property to true.
Obviously the sooner this is set the more debug will be produced.
So either the code of one component uses the code approach, or there is a configuration value set to true. Your options are:
look through the configuration files for a reference to the log4net.Internal.Debug config key; if you find one set to true, set it to false.
add an empty log4net section in the configuration file to satisfy the configurator and prevent it from complaining
if the internal debugging is set through code, you may be able to redirect console out and the trace appenders (see link for where the internal debugging writes to) but this really depends on your environment so you'll need to dig a bit more to find how to catch all outputs. Not really simple
I'm working on a CherryPy application based on what I found on that BitBucket repository.
As in this example, there is two config files, server.cfg (aka "global") and app.cfg.
Both config files are loaded in the serve.py file :
# Update the global settings for the HTTP server and engine
cherrypy.config.update(os.path.join(self.conf_path, "server.cfg"))
# ...
# Our application
from webapp.app import Twiseless
webapp = Twiseless()
# Let's mount the application so that CherryPy can serve it
app = cherrypy.tree.mount(webapp, '/', os.path.join(self.conf_path, "app.cfg"))
Now, I'd like to add the Database configuration.
My first thought was to add it in the server.cfg (is this the best place? or should it be located in app.cfg ?).
But if I add the Database configuration in the server.cfg, I don't know how to access it.
Using :
cherrypy.request.app.config['Database']
Works only if the [Database] parameter is in the app.cfg.
I tried to print cherrypy.request.app.config, and it shows me only the values defined in app.cfg, nothing in server.cfg.
So I have two related question :
Is it best to put the database connection in the server.cfg or app.cfg file
How to access server.cfg configuration (aka global) in my code
Thanks for your help! :)
Put it in the app config. A good question to help you decide where to put such things is, "if I mounted an unrelated blog app at /blogs on the same server, would I want it to share that config?" If so, put it in server config. If not, put it in app config.
Note also that the global config isn't sectioned, so you can't stick a [Database] section in there anyway. Only the app config allows sections. If you wanted to stick database settings in the global config anyway, you'd have to consider config entry names like "database_port" instead. You would then access it directly by that name: cherrypy.config.get("database_port").
If I have a greenfield project, what is the best practice Perl based configuration module to use?
There will be a Catalyst app and some command line scripts. They should share the same configuration.
Some features I think I want ...
Hierarchical Configurations to cleanly maintain different development and live settings.
I'd like to define "global" configurations once (eg, results_per_page => 20), have those inherited but override-able by my dev/live configs.
Global:
results_per_page: 20
db_dsn: DBI:mysql;
db_name: my_app
Dev:
inherit_from: Global
db_user: dev
db_pass: dev
Dev_New_Feature_Branch:
inherit_from: Dev
db_name: my_app_new_feature
Live:
inherit_from: Global
db_user: live
db_pass: secure
When I deploy a project to a new server, or branch/fork/copy it somewhere new (eg, a new development instance), I want to (one time only) set which configuration set/file to use, and then all future updates are automatic.
I'd envisage this could be achieved with a symlink:
git clone example.com:/var/git/my_project . # or any equiv vcs
cd my_project/etc
ln -s live.config to_use.config
Then in the future
git pull # or any equiv vcs
I'd also like something that akin to FindBin, so that my configs can either use absolute paths, or relative to the current deployment. Given
/home/me/development/project/
bin
lib
etc/config
where /home/me/development/project/etc/config contains:
tmpl_dir: templates/
when my perl code looks up the tmpl_dir configuration it'll get:
/home/me/development/project/templates/
But on the live deployment:
/var/www/project/
bin
lib
etc/config
The same code would magically return
/var/www/project/templates/
Absolute values in the config should be honoured, so that:
apache_config: /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
would return "/etc/apache2/httpd.conf" in all cases.
Rather than a FindBin style approach, an alternative might be to allow configuration values to be defined in terms of other configuration values?
tmpl_dir: $base_dir/templates
I'd also like a pony ;)
Catalyst::Plugin::ConfigLoader supports multiple overriding config files. If your Catalyst app is called MyApp, then it has three levels of override: 1) MyApp.pm can have a __PACKAGE__->config(...) directive, 2) it next looks for MyApp.yml in the main directory of the app, 3) it looks for MyApp_local.yml. Each level may override settings in each other level.
In a Catalyst app I built, I put all of my immutable settings in MyApp.pm, my debug settings in MyApp.yml, and my production settings in MyApp_<servertype>.yml and then symlinked MyApp_local.yml to point at MyApp_<servertype>.yml on each deployed server (they were all a little different...).
That way, all of my config was in SVN and I just needed one ln -s step to manually config a server.
Perl Best Practices warns against exactly what you want. It states that config files should be simple and avoid the sort of baroque features you desire. It goes on to recommend three modules (none of which are Core Perl): Config::General, Config::Std, and Config::Tiny.
The general rational behind this is that the editing of config files tends to be done by non-programmers and the more complicated you make your config files, the more likely they will screw them up.
All of that said, you might take a look at YAML. It provides a full featured, human readable*, serialization format. I believe the currently recommend parser in Perl is YAML::XS. If you do go this route I would suggest writing a configuration tool for end users to use instead of having them edit the files directly.
ETA: Based on Chris Dolan's answer it sounds like YAML is the way to go for you since Catalyst is already using it (.yml is the de facto extension for YAML files).
* I have heard complaints that blind people may have difficulty with it
YAML is hateful for config - it's not non-programmer friendly partly because yaml in pod is by definition broken as they're both white-space dependent in different ways. This addresses the main problem with Config::General. I've written some quite complicated config files with C::G in the past and it really keeps out of your way in terms of syntax requirements etc. Other than that, Chris' advice seems on the money.