-
1. Re: What variables/properties can we reference in configuration files?
stlewis Nov 28, 2012 9:22 AM (in response to komododave)These are effectively OSGi blueprint substitutions. MQ is configured as a managed service factory, meaning that the base configuration can be shared by broker instances in a container, with specific stuff configured via a properties file. When using fabric this properties file is in a profile. For the mq-base/mq setup out of the box the file you'd want to look at is in the "mq" profile, in FMC go to the Configurations tab for that profile and look at the "org.fusesource.mq.fabric.server-broker.properties" configuration.
-
2. Re: What variables/properties can we reference in configuration files?
komododave Nov 28, 2012 10:58 AM (in response to stlewis)Thank you for this information Stan.
It concerns me when an explanation begins with "effectively..", purely because it feels like a 6th grade explanation instead of how things really are! Are you implying it's logic in Fabric which performs OSGi blueprint substitutions as well as some other things?
I had a look in the mq configuration properties you pointed me to. So why is it that broker-name isn't defined in there? Is there a way for me to learn all available properties not yet specified in there besides digging through source code?
-
3. Re: What variables/properties can we reference in configuration files?
stlewis Nov 28, 2012 9:49 AM (in response to komododave)Actually I think it is a blueprint config, I haven't worked on that particular component so I'm less familiar with it, the MQ forum might be a better place to ask for details.
Anyway unfortunately blueprint doesn't offer a way to introspect what possible configuration settings are available to be set, at least that I'm aware of. You can set the broker name via that configuration file, but if it's not set then MQ will use the Karaf container name, hence why it's not in the configuration file.
-
4. Re: What variables/properties can we reference in configuration files?
komododave Nov 28, 2012 10:59 AM (in response to stlewis)Ok sure thing. Thank you for clarifying Stan, much appreciated.