felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Litton" <Rick.Lit...@ktd-kyocera.com>
Subject RE: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-285) Make resolver more robust
Date Mon, 21 May 2007 21:50:12 GMT
Richard S. Hall wrote:

> But, ultimately, there is no way to avoid holes.

That's unfortunate. I know it shouldn't bother me but my concern is that
once we get into the high 2-digit and even triple-digit numbers it will
become too noticeable to ignore. By then people might start to wonder
why their systems appeared incomplete.  I wonder if anyone has found a
workaround to this restriction. I realize too that it is a "ui thing"
which certainly can be masked...or nothing that creating a new profile
will not solve.

Rick Litton


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:heavy@ungoverned.org] 
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 3:47 PM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-285) Make resolver more robust

Rick Litton wrote:
> Here's an actual example:
>
> -> ps
> START LEVEL 1
> ...
> [  14] [Active     ] [    1] Framework Manager (1.1.0)
> [  16] [Active     ] [    1] Framework Upgrade (1.1.0)
> [  17] [Active     ] [    1] Framework Messaging (1.1.1)
>
> Bundle 15 was uninstalled previously.  Is there an easier way to 
> renumber the sequence so that "holes" do not appear apart from 
> resetting all the bundle ids programmatically?

The spec specifically says that bundle IDs should not be re-used, I 
believe...in truth, Felix doesn't strictly obey this, because Felix 
starts from the highest bundle ID discovered on framework startup. So, 
if you delete the highest bundle, then shutdown and restart, Felix will 
re-use that bundle ID.

But, ultimately, there is no way to avoid holes.

-> richard

>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard S. Hall" 
> <heavy@ungoverned.org>
> To: <dev@felix.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-285) Make resolver more robust
>
>
>> Rick Litton wrote:
>>> Richard Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>> It doesn't stop the framework, it simply creates a transitive 
>>>> closure of all bundles with dependencies on the bundles being 
>>>> refreshed and then stops and restarts them all. This is the proper 
>>>> behavior as described by the spec. Of course, if there are bugs in 
>>>> this process, please report them.
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly, it stopped all the bundles hence, my 
>>> impression it stopped the framework.  I think this action is also 
>>> valid after reading the specs.  However, I will try to reproduce
it...
>>>
>>> P.S.  Any solution to re-ordering of the bundle ids?
>>
>> I am not sure what you are talking about.
>>
>> -> richard
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Rick Litton
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard S. Hall" 
>>> <heavy@ungoverned.org>
>>> To: <dev@felix.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-285) Make resolver more robust
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rick Litton wrote:
>>>>> This is an important issue but it's difficult to find a solution 
>>>>> that can apply to everyone.  In my case however, I perform an 
>>>>> update whenever a newer version is available from the repository.

>>>>> However, it's not as easy as it sounds.  The "update" caches a 
>>>>> newer version but the old version still lurks in the cache until 
>>>>> PackageAdmin.refreshPackages() is called.  Unfortunately, this 
>>>>> last action I believe stops the framework (in Felix) or doesn't 
>>>>> work very well from experience.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't stop the framework, it simply creates a transitive 
>>>> closure of all bundles with dependencies on the bundles being 
>>>> refreshed and then stops and restarts them all. This is the proper 
>>>> behavior as described by the spec. Of course, if there are bugs in 
>>>> this process, please report them.
>>>>
>>>> -> richard
>>>>
>>>>> At any rate, my workaround was to simply to start the new bundle 
>>>>> and undeploy the old one. This sequence may not be exactly correct

>>>>> as I don't have the code in front of me.  The other issue I have 
>>>>> was the re-ordering of the bundle-id's after bundles have been 
>>>>> removed. But this perhaps requires another discussion thread...
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick Litton
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard S. Hall (JIRA)" 
>>>>> <jira@apache.org>
>>>>> To: <dev@felix.apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 11:38 AM
>>>>> Subject: [jira] Commented: (FELIX-285) Make resolver more robust
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    [ 
>>>>>>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-285?page=com.atlassian.jira.
plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12497174 
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard S. Hall commented on FELIX-285:
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing I was thinking about with respect to this patch was 
>>>>>> that issue (2) listed above now changes the resolver so that it 
>>>>>> always performs an update if one is possible, correct? 
>>>>>> Ultimately, this is a policy decision that does not minimize the

>>>>>> amount of work that OBR performs. In the old version of the 
>>>>>> algorithm, the algorithm minimized the work that it performed and

>>>>>> it took a conscious decision to perform an update (unless 
>>>>>> dependencies could not be satisfied with local resources). I am 
>>>>>> not sure which is the best approach in this scenario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Make resolver more robust
>>>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                 Key: FELIX-285
>>>>>>>                 URL: 
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-285
>>>>>>>             Project: Felix
>>>>>>>          Issue Type: Improvement
>>>>>>>          Components: Bundle Repository (OBR)
>>>>>>>    Affects Versions: 1.0.0
>>>>>>>            Reporter: Bart Elen
>>>>>>>         Assigned To: Richard S. Hall
>>>>>>>             Fix For: 1.0.0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Attachments: ResolverImpl.java
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two issues with the resolver of the current OBR 
>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>> 1) It does not try each possible composition
>>>>>>> Suppose we want to install bundle A, and A has a requirement

>>>>>>> which can be fulfilled by bundle B or C. B itself has a 
>>>>>>> requirement which can be fulfilled by bundle X and bundle C has

>>>>>>> a requirement which can be fulfilled by bundle Y.
>>>>>>> A-B-X
>>>>>>> A-C-Y
>>>>>>> Suppose now that bundle X is not available (or can not be 
>>>>>>> installed on the local platform)
>>>>>>> A-B-
>>>>>>> A-C-Y
>>>>>>> composition A-C-Y is now a correct composition, but the current

>>>>>>> implementation will notice that bundle B can not be resolved
and

>>>>>>> will then stop. OBR will not always detect the correct
composition.
>>>>>>> 2) Bundles are not always updated
>>>>>>> Suppose we want to install bundle A which has a requirement 
>>>>>>> which can be fulfilled by bundle B.
>>>>>>> A-B
>>>>>>> An old version of bundle B is already locally installed on the

>>>>>>> platform but a newer version is available on the repository 
>>>>>>> server. The current OBR implementation will detect that the 
>>>>>>> requirement of A can be met by the locally installed old version

>>>>>>> of B and it will not check for a newer version on the repository

>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>> I attached a fixed version of ResolverImpl.java in which the

>>>>>>> described issues are fixed.
>>>>>>> This is my first issue submit ever. Feedback to make it better

>>>>>>> is appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message