camel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: Camel, OSGi and versioning
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:30:50 GMT
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:22, Willem Jiang <> wrote:

> +1 for #1,
> for the #2, I think we could let the component dependent on the version
> ranges of camel-core, camel-spring, camel-osgi.
> But for camel-core, camel-spring and camel-osgi, they should dependent each
> other with specific version.
Why ?  This would prevent from upgrading one of those bundles without
upgrading the others.

> Willem
> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> I've spotted a few problems in the way the OSGi metadata for camel jars
>> are
>> computed.
>> This makes deploying two versions of camel in OSGi nearly impossible.
>> To fix, I plan to enhance the metadata in two ways:
>> #1. bundles should not import the packages they export
>> Here's an example what happen when you do so:
>>   * install bundle A version vx that export and import it
>>     the OSGi framework will decide that A export this package because no
>> other package is available
>>  * install the same bundle in version vy
>>     as some of the packages are already exported by the first version of
>> A,
>> the OSGi resolver may choose
>>     to have this bundle import the package in version vx (provided that
>> the
>> version constraints match)
>>     this means that this bundle will not use its own classes for all the
>> packages that are in common, leading
>>     to obvious problems
>> So not importing the package means that the OSGi framework will always use
>> the classes from inside the bundle.
>> #2. always use version ranges
>>  * For non camel imports, I think the default should be to have a range
>> equal to [v,v+1) assuming backward compatibility is preserved on minor
>> releases.  So if one bundle has a dependency on version 1.1, the
>> range will be [1.1,2) meaning the framework is allowed to choose any
>> package
>> with a version >= 1.1 but < 2.0
>>  * for camel imports, this is a bit trickier.  I think the default range
>> should be restricted to minor versions, i.e. [1.1,1.2)
>> The problem here is to allow someone to update a camel component or core
>> without updating the whole camel jars, so we need some flexibility on this
>> range.  But usually, I don't think we really ensure full backward
>> compatibility between minor versions, so having [2.0,3) might not be a
>> good
>> idea.
>> Furthermore, this would mean that you can't really deploy two different
>> minor versions of camel in the same framework, which I think is desirable.
>> Now, the tricky part is to make sure that we always use consistent
>> classes.
>> For example when camel-core discover a component, we don't really want
>> camel-core 1.4 discovering camel 2.0 components, as this would fail.   So
>> the discovery mechanism has to be enhanced to make sure we load compatible
>> classes.
>> In OSGi, this can be done by loading a class from the component bundle and
>> making sure it's the same as our.
>> For example:
>>    componentBundle.loadClass(org.apache.camel.Endpoint.class.getName()) ==
>> org.apache.camel.Endpoint.class
>> This way, the discovery mechanism will be retricted to components that are
>> actually wired to this camel-core bundle.
>> So at the end we should be able to:
>>  * deploy multiple versions of camel, provided they have different minor
>> releases (ex: 1.4, 2.0, 2.1)
>>  * upgrade components / core with micro release (ex: camel-core 2.0,
>> camel-spring 2.0.2, camel-atom 2.0.1)
>> And everything should work nicely :-)
>> I'll start updating the OSGi metadata, but any help would be welcome, as
>> there are tons of components here !
>> Also, any volunteer for upgrading and testing the discovery mechanism is
>> welcomed !

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message