cfml

Hi <@U06V253M4>
Looking at <https://dev.lucee.org/t/lucee-5-3-10-97-stable-release/11540> I see the following:

&gt; One of the most exciting features in 5.3.10, which should make should make everyone’s life easier when deploying Lucee servers, is improved, still experimental, native support for `CFconfig`.
&gt; • <https://docs.lucee.org/guides/cookbooks/Startup_Listeners.html|Startup Listeners, server.cfc and web.cfc :: Lucee Documentation 13>
&gt; • <https://docs.lucee.org/reference/functions/configimport.html|configImport() :: Lucee Documentation 13>
&gt; • <https://luceeserver.atlassian.net/browse/LDEV-4168|add support for .cfconfig.json importing on startup 9>
&gt; There are, however, a few known issues with `configImport`, datasource imports and s3 mappings don’t quite work yet
&gt; • <https://luceeserver.atlassian.net/browse/LDEV-4255|LDEV-4255 3> - configImport isn’t importing custom args for datasources
&gt; • <https://luceeserver.atlassian.net/browse/LDEV-4289|LDEV-4289> - configImport isn’t importing s3 mappings
Am I correct in thinking that this (at least once remaining issues are resolved) should allow for use of finalised CB docker images, whilst maintaining the ability to set certain Lucee configuration variables dynamically from environment variables?

Possibly, but I'm not sure why you're asking me, lol.  I haven't played with Lucee's built-in CFConfig support and don't know right off how it works.

They did their own implementation of this, instead of using the exusting CFConfig service module, so I'm not sure how much it follows the same JSON structure, or if it allows for placeholders in the JSON.  I would bet they probably didn't copy the cfconfig_settingName env var convention so YMMV.

Argh….
Now why would I think that when implementing support for a third party product configuration template, that they would:
• Collaborate with the developers of the original
• Use the framework provided to ensure it works in the same way…
:man-facepalming: