Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D2FFA94D-FCFC-4960-9D0D-2440893D9081@yahoo.com>
References: <D2FFA94D-FCFC-4960-9D0D-2440893D9081@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 07:39:04 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAKkCf4q9vYZqDTaDEV1RoeHJ6AgBWv-Byf8FAN=ffFVJD0BrKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DS] Various factory component issues, and progress on RFC 190
From: Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org>
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11331cb04283ca04f9ce4c44

--001a11331cb04283ca04f9ce4c44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,


2014-05-19 22:57 GMT+02:00 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>:

> There are some difficulties with factory components and DTO/mutliple pid
> support.  In terms of the spec, DTO and factory components don't work wel=
l
> together, see bug 2683 (I'm not sure how visible this is to
> non-osgi-members).  In Felix,
>
> 1. I think we should not support the obsolete factory configuration >>
> newInstance-like behavior on namespace 1.3+ components.  We shouldn't hav=
e
> supported it after namespace 1.0, but we should stop now for sure. Trying
> to support this with multiple pids is just too weird.
>
> +1, yes we should have dropped that support with earlier namespaces :(


> 2. Because of how I implemented multiple pid support for normal
> components, I think it would be easy to Implement factory config > multip=
le
> instances of the ComponentFactory service.  I believe this behavior was
> requested by Pierre de Rop.  There's an additional problem if you do this
> that you can't distinguish the ComponentFactory services registered from
> the multiple factory configurations.  To solve this I propose that
> configuration properties prefixed with "org.apache.felix.scr.factory."
> (exact string up for discussion) be added to the ComponentFactory service
> properties.  Of course all this would have to be enabled by an flag in th=
e
> xml such as felix:factoryComponentFactoryPID=3D"true" (no good ideas on t=
his
> one yet).
>

Sounds fine to me. Would it make sense to get this into RFC190?

>
> As a reminder, a few days ago I said I was about to remove the legacy
> configuration system entirely in favor of the spec one based on DTOs sinc=
e
> they are conceptually incompatible and the existing one is fundamentally
> confused.  So far no response so it's going soon=E2=80=A6.
>
I agree, let's just go forward with the DTOs

Carsten


>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>


--=20
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

--001a11331cb04283ca04f9ce4c44--