felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Date Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:50:57 GMT
Do you have a patch that you could attach to FELIX-3687 that I could look
at ?
Again, I have no problems reverting my patch, but I'd like FELIX-3687 /
FELIX-4190 to be fixed in some way or another, preferably the best one ...

Cheers,
Guillaume


2014-02-23 19:25 GMT+01:00 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>:

> As I've said before, I sort of need some advice on how to proceed to fix
> the deadlock.  I'm slightly in favor of just rolling back Guillaume's fix
> since it is definitely not spec compliant.  Whether the deadlock is more
> spec compliant is certainly debatable.
>
> david jencks
>
> On Feb 23, 2014, at 8:14 AM, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It's been a while since this thread was started. I see that there is a
> > desire to improve on the locking, but nothing has happened in that
> > area over the past month.
> > I was thinking to start putting together a release early March, since
> > it will be nice to have R5 core support in a release. If we can get
> > the locking code improved before that then great, but was thinking
> > that if nothing has happened there we should postpone
> > FELIX-3687/FELIX-4190 to a later release?
> >
> > Thought anyone?
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 30 January 2014 08:53, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >>> I hope that someone cleans up the mess around
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3687
> >>> and
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4190
> >>> before a release candidate.
> >>>
> >>> In the first issue I proposed a patch, Richard pointed out a problem,
> and
> >>> I suggested a possible solution and haven't gotten any comments.
> >>>
> >>> In the 2nd issue Guillaume committed a fix that is invalid and AFAIK it
> >>> has not been corrected.
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> david jencks
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:40 AM, David Bosschaert <
> david.bosschaert@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>> +1 for a new framework release, it would be great to have full R5
> >>> support,
> >>>>> but if that is not supposed to happen soon
> >>>>
> >>>> Full disclosure:
> >>>> I tried my hand on those resolver related open issues, but had the
> >>>> feeling that I didn't understand the Felix code well enough for it.
> >>>> The resolver is a pretty complex beast, especially since it's
> >>>> recursive/re-entrant and I found that fixing one little issue would
> >>>> cause tons of other things to fall over elsewhere ;) In the end I
> >>>> often came up with a patchwork of fixes for one resolver CT test
> >>>> failure where I had the feeling that it could be done more elegantly.
> >>>>
> >>>> so in the end I abandoned my attempts here... I think those remaining
> >>>> resolver issues are for someone who really knows the felix resolver
> >>>> code inside out :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> David
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

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