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 19:35:14 GMT

Am 03.10.2012 um 19:28 schrieb David Jencks:

> 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.


I think such information is without any value. And our own tests being the sole use cases
is a bit weak to add API.

> 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.

If I understand the issue/patch correctly, it does something like this: If an optional service
cannot be eagerly bound (to call a bind method taking the service instance) due to a circularity
(exception thrown from the BundleContext.getService method) it will not be bound but may later
be bound if the actual service instance is created. Correct ?

I think, this sounds good.

> For these two, I'm wondering if they would be useful enough to propose for the DS 1.3

Does FELIX-3557 really imply a spec change ? At most it might be kind of an implementation

> 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?

The longer I think about it, the more I have to admit that I agree....

> 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.  

Well, these objects have been quite simple and easy to understand and worked perfectly (admittedly
with some glitches). Now over time and patches applied, I agree they became quite complex
and the concurrency behaviour became more complex. So for concurrency having immutable objects
is a lot easier to handle than mutable ones.

> 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 state.

I agree, that the states enabled and disabled might be confusing. But I am not sure, whether
those are really states of component instances (or component configurations as the spec calls
them). Rather they are states of the "abstract" component.

The component instances on the other hand have states like unsatisfied, activating, active,
registered, etc.

In our implementation the component instance is represented by the AbstractComponentManager
and its extensions while the "abstract" component is represented by combination of the ComponentHolder
and the ComponentMetadata.

View raw message