felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DS] Feedback wanted on some ideas
Date Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:01:23 GMT
Hi Andrei,

Am 05.10.2012 um 20:54 schrieb Andrei Pozolotin:

> Felix: great. can you please share link - what do you mean by "upcoming
> spec "? Andrei.

There is nothing public yet except the requirements available from OSGi Bug 147 [1] (where
you commented already)

The rest is work in progress in the OSGi Aliance which I cannot share yet. But the API will
be based on what's in my sandbox at [2] (though there will be some changes).

The "upcoming spec" is the spec enhancements we do to implement RFP-151 from Bug 147.


[1] https://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=147
[2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/sandbox/fmeschbe/dsadmin/

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [DS] Feedback wanted on some ideas
> From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
> To: dev@felix.apache.org <dev@felix.apache.org>
> Date: Fri 05 Oct 2012 01:48:41 PM CDT
>> Hi,
>> Am 03.10.2012 um 19:39 schrieb Andrei Pozolotin:
>>> great ideas; one more for your consideration
>>> http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v41/org/osgi/service/component/ComponentContext.html#enableComponent(java.lang.String)
>>> <http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v41/org/osgi/service/component/ComponentContext.html#enableComponent%28java.lang.String%29>
>>> """
>>> public void *enableComponent*(java.lang.String name)
>>>   Enables the specified component name. The specified component name
>>>   must be in the same bundle as this component.
>>> """
>>> instead, I suggest to permit traversal of bundle boundaries, so
>>> enable/disable target can be anywhere.
>> No. This would open security doors/holes.
>> And as David indicates: The ScrService as well as the upcoming spec will allow for
administrative enablement and disablement accross bundle boundaries (and the spec will include
security considerations).
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [DS] Feedback wanted on some ideas
>>> From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
>>> To: dev@felix.apache.org
>>> Date: Wed 03 Oct 2012 12:28:49 PM CDT
>>>> I've had several ideas about DS enhancements, some of which I've implemented,
and would like some feedback about how desirable they are before committing or proceeding
with them.
>>>> 1.  (FELIX-3692)  If you manually enable/disable components some of the work
gets done asynchronously.  I propose an api for finding out whether this work is done or waiting
for it, something like
>>>>  boolean tasksCompleted();
>>>>  void waitForTasksCompleted();
>>>> on ScrService.   (suggestions for better names welcome :-)  One use would
be in our tests to replace the delay() call.
>>>> 2.  (FELIX-3557) There are several circumstances in which, as the spec warns,
you can't establish a circular dependency between components.  In some of these cases, the
order in which the components are activated determines whether all the references are established.
 This is hard to understand from a users point of view :-).  Sometimes it's possible to detect
these situations and establish the reference asynchronously.  The patch attached to the issue
does this but needs a little more work to only try with services from DS components.
>>>> For these two, I'm wondering if they would be useful enough to propose for
the DS 1.3 spec.
>>>> 3. (re-proposal)  I'd like to propose moving the implementation to java 5
again with generics etc.  The last time I suggested this there was a lot of pushback on the
grounds that there are a lot of people using DS on limited platforms.  However, none of these
alleged :-) people is using trunk, because for several months the classes pulled from the
concurrent library were wrong and trunk just didn't run on pre-java-5 vms.  Are the compendium
4.3 spec classes we pull in even compatible with pre-java-5 vms?
>>>> 4.  (radical idea I haven't tried yet)  I'm becoming increasingly convinced
that the state objects in AbstractComponentManager mostly cause confusion and make the code
more complicated and less reliable.  The spec really only describes two states, enabled and
disabled.  The variations on enabled -- whether the component has all its dependencies satisfied,
whether the service is registered, whether there are any implementation objects created --
all seem somewhat orthogonal and depend very much on the environment  and don't seem to relate
well to a single "dimension" of state.  I'm considering trying to refactor the code that responds
to outside actions (activate/deactivate and dependencies appearing/disappearing) to be more
"straight-through" with checks on the specific aspects of state that they need.  Possibly
we would want to put the "dynamic state" such as dependencies + instances in a single state
object, but this is a different approach to the current state objects which have no internal
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks

View raw message