I guess I let the ball drop on this one. Busy month. Anyway, I ran into serious problems with the package on a server with aggressive GC options. It turned out that my use of WeakReferences let ServiceListeners drop when the client code doesn't hold a hard reference on the ServiceListener. Since I cannot always assume that the life-time of a service discovery client equals that of the host bundle, I wanted to release OSGi ServiceTrackers when possible. This is especially important if the service discovery client doesn't know when it's no longer used (often the case in legacy code). So, I have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better approach.
Jeremias Maerki On 08.11.2012 11:16:19 Jeremy Hughes wrote: > Maybe I misread Jeremias' email. When he said: > > "I'd argue that IP clearance is absolutely necessary in this case" > > I thought he was saying he was going to do the s/w grant form. Now > I've reread his email, it does seem a bit mixed up. > > Patch to JIRA, with code acceptance vote fine with me. > > Cheers, > Jeremy > > On 1 November 2012 10:49, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just wondering what the status is with this contribution... Since > > Jemerias doesn't think IP clearance is necessary, will we simply go > > ahead with an acceptance vote, which Jemerias can kick off himself, > > IIUC? > > > > Cheers, > > > > David > > > > On 23 October 2012 07:25, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks for your feedback, Jeremy! I'd argue that IP clearance is > >> absolutely necessary in this case since it's a clean-room development > >> entirely by me, it's a relatively small codebase and I'm an Apache > >> member with an ICLA on file. But I have no problem going through with it > >> if this is preferred. After all, I've guided a larger contribution > >> through back in 2006 already. > >> > >> > >> Jeremias Maerki > >> > >> > >> On 22.10.2012 17:26:12 Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >>> On 22 October 2012 11:01, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > I'm not sure what the rules are here but if you can't propose it as a > >>> > non-committer I would be happy to propose it for you. > >>> > > >>> > Anyone else any thoughts? > >>> > >>> Sure. The voting process dictates whose votes are binding and I would > >>> expect one of those people to commit the code if the vote is > >>> successful. > >>> > >>> Jeremias, I support you bringing this to Aries. Thank you (in fact I > >>> already mentioned it our last board report that you had contributed > >>> it :-) Since you developed your code outside the ASF you should look > >>> at: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > >>> > >>> Thanks you! > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Cheers, > >>> > > >>> > David > >>> > > >>> > On 22 October 2012 08:04, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >> Dear gods of war, ;-) > >>> >> > >>> >> would it be ill taken if I started an acceptance vote on this as a > >>> >> non-committer? I'd like to get a decision since I need to know soon if > >>> >> this will live on under org.apache package names or not. It doesn't > >>> >> really matter to me which way in the end. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks! > >>> >> Jeremias Maerki > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On 09.10.2012 17:00:21 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > >>> >>> Thanks for the additional proposal! Spire is quite nice, but in the > >>> >>> end > >>> >>> I went with SPI Catch for now as it emphasizes the relationship with > >>> >>> SPI > >>> >>> Fly. I have no problem renaming it, though. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-938 and > >>> >>> attached > >>> >>> the initial submission. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> You're absolutely right about the possible confusion with distributed > >>> >>> discovery. I have a little such component of my own that has > >>> >>> "discovery" > >>> >>> in its name. Sticking with a reference to "SPI" is certainly a good > >>> >>> thing. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> There is a little snag that currently, the OSGI-side integration test > >>> >>> doesn't work for some reason when running from within the Maven build. > >>> >>> It works for me inside Eclipse. I've spent more than half my day > >>> >>> tracking this down but so far to no avail (suggestions welcome). But I > >>> >>> don't think this should block an acceptance vote. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> So, any questions, objections or other comments on this proposal? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> If not I'd be grateful if the Aries committership would vote on the > >>> >>> acceptance of the new component. Please note that this is not intended > >>> >>> as a code drop. I plan to make further live tests and to publish the > >>> >>> necessary changes to Apache FOP and Batik to apply SPI Catch and make > >>> >>> those projects first-class OSGi citizens. The bundles are going into a > >>> >>> a test environment of an application that is planned to go live in > >>> >>> January 2013. However, I don't expect SPI Catch to gain considerably > >>> >>> more functionality in the future since its scope is rather narrowly > >>> >>> defined. But I'm dedicated to hanging around here to help anyone who > >>> >>> finds this useful. If it can help flesh out OSGi Connect, all the > >>> >>> better. > >>> >>> I'll also try to help out with SPI Fly and other topics. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Thanks, > >>> >>> Jeremias Maerki > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 08.10.2012 11:44:00 David Bosschaert wrote: > >>> >>> > Hi Jeremias, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > I wouldn't take the discovery one as discovery in the OSGi context > >>> >>> > is > >>> >>> > often associated with distributed discovery in the context of the > >>> >>> > Remote Services and Remote Service Admin specs. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > I just came up with one other name suggestion: Spire (where SPI > >>> >>> > stands > >>> >>> > for SPI and 'RE' stands for reuse both inside and outside of OSGi > >>> >>> > contexts :-) > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > In any case the name is probably not super important right now. Just > >>> >>> > pick one that you like for the submission proposal. Refactoring > >>> >>> > tools > >>> >>> > in IDEs like Eclipse should make it easy enough to rename later if > >>> >>> > someone comes up with a better name. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Cheers, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > David > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > On 8 October 2012 10:34, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> >>> > > Agreed. So, let's narrow down the name suggestions to two: > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > - org.apache.aries.discovery > >>> >>> > > - org.apache.aries.spicatch (SPI Catch, i.e. the opposite of SPI > >>> >>> > > Fly) > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > I prefer the latter since it has a cheeky touch and still retains > >>> >>> > > the > >>> >>> > > relationship with SPI Fly. > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > WDYT? Better ideas? > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > Cheers, > >>> >>> > > Jeremias Maerki > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > On 08.10.2012 11:03:30 David Bosschaert wrote: > >>> >>> > >> Sounds good to me. > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> Just one note, I think it should not necessarily be a > >>> >>> > >> sub-component of > >>> >>> > >> SPI Fly. Yes, it uses that for some of its functionality, but I > >>> >>> > >> think > >>> >>> > >> that's really an implementation detail. I think it should be a > >>> >>> > >> top-level component in its own right. > >>> >>> > >> Just to compare, there are other components that depend on the > >>> >>> > >> Aries > >>> >>> > >> proxy functionality, but still they are not sub-components of > >>> >>> > >> aries-proxy. > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> Cheers, > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> David > >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> On 8 October 2012 09:47, Jeremias Maerki > >>> >>> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> > >> > Hi David > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > Great! I think the process should be easy: > >>> >>> > >> > - We decide on a (package) name. > >>> >>> > >> > - I change the package structure after that decision. > >>> >>> > >> > - I'll try to come up with a POM (I'm no big Mavener) > >>> >>> > >> > - I put together a submission which I'll upload to JIRA. > >>> >>> > >> > - It is debatable whether I need to file a code grant but I > >>> >>> > >> > have > >>> >>> > >> > developed that all by myself and I'm an ASF member (with an > >>> >>> > >> > ICLA on file). > >>> >>> > >> > It's also not that big a contribution. So I don't think this is > >>> >>> > >> > necessary. > >>> >>> > >> > - The Aries committership votes on acceptance. > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > So, back to naming. What shall it be? > >>> >>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spifly.consumer > >>> >>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spifly.discovery > >>> >>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.discovery > >>> >>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.plugin.discovery > >>> >>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spi.catch ;-) > >>> >>> > >> > - other ideas? > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > Cheers, > >>> >>> > >> > Jeremias Maerki > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > >> > On 08.10.2012 10:02:32 David Bosschaert wrote: > >>> >>> > >> >> Hi Jeremias, > >>> >>> > >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> On 5 October 2012 14:58, Jeremias Maerki > >>> >>> > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >>> > >> >> >> Next question is would it make sense to add this > >>> >>> > >> >> >> functionality to Aries? > >>> >>> > >> >> >> I think it does. To me many of the ideas in here match > >>> >>> > >> >> >> with the OSGi > >>> >>> > >> >> >> Connect RFP 145 > >>> >>> > >> >> >> (http://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145) and > >>> >>> > >> >> >> I think that, besides its practical use today, this code > >>> >>> > >> >> >> could be a > >>> >>> > >> >> >> valuable input to the standardization process of OSGi > >>> >>> > >> >> >> Connect. Overall > >>> >>> > >> >> >> the charter of OSGi Connect is to create a dynamic services > >>> >>> > >> >> >> environment that works both inside OSGi and out. To me the > >>> >>> > >> >> >> overall > >>> >>> > >> >> >> goal of your code seems similar. > >>> >>> > >> >> >> If we all agree that it would be suitable for this > >>> >>> > >> >> >> component to reside > >>> >>> > >> >> >> in Aries, I think we should strive to make it ultimately > >>> >>> > >> >> >> compliant > >>> >>> > >> >> >> with the OSGi Connect spec, when that's available. > >>> >>> > >> >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> >> Does this make sense to you? > >>> >>> > >> >> > > >>> >>> > >> >> > As I understand it OSGi Connect's goal is to use a subset > >>> >>> > >> >> > of the OSGi > >>> >>> > >> >> > framework (most importantly the service layer but not the > >>> >>> > >> >> > module layer). > >>> >>> > >> >> > So you can use the OSGi ServiceTracker to lookup services. > >>> >>> > >> >> > In that case, > >>> >>> > >> >> > my library isn't needed and probably not very useful, since > >>> >>> > >> >> > it actually > >>> >>> > >> >> > strives not to use OSGi APIs at all. So, I'm not quite > >>> >>> > >> >> > getting your > >>> >>> > >> >> > point here. I got about one too many hints that some people > >>> >>> > >> >> > may have > >>> >>> > >> >> > reservations when introducing OSGi to a plain Java project > >>> >>> > >> >> > ("Do we all > >>> >>> > >> >> > have to learn OSGi? Can I still use X in plain Java? > >>> >>> > >> >> > etc."). OSGi, > >>> >>> > >> >> > unfortunately, is still not as widely adopted as I would > >>> >>> > >> >> > like. I've > >>> >>> > >> >> > noticed how a low-level ServiceTracker can provoke > >>> >>> > >> >> > reactions like: "Does > >>> >>> > >> >> > it have to be that complicated?" At least, until they get > >>> >>> > >> >> > the power of > >>> >>> > >> >> > it. So, my main goal was to really just shield everyone > >>> >>> > >> >> > from OSGi as > >>> >>> > >> >> > much as possible. Basically, I just wanted to provide an > >>> >>> > >> >> > easy migration > >>> >>> > >> >> > path without the requirement to learn about OSGi beyond > >>> >>> > >> >> > including > >>> >>> > >> >> > manifest metadata. If my thingy helps OSGi Connect, that's > >>> >>> > >> >> > great but I > >>> >>> > >> >> > frankly don't see how. I'm probably still missing something. > >>> >>> > >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> I get your point. From a very high level both OSGi Connect > >>> >>> > >> >> and your > >>> >>> > >> >> project aim at getting to use OSGi easier, however OSGi > >>> >>> > >> >> Connect > >>> >>> > >> >> strives to do this by introducing the OSGi APIs early (before > >>> >>> > >> >> the > >>> >>> > >> >> modularity layer) whereas your approach strives to do this by > >>> >>> > >> >> introducing the OSGi APIs late (or not at all, even). > >>> >>> > >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> Personally I think choice is good and it's up to the users to > >>> >>> > >> >> really > >>> >>> > >> >> decide what technology they want to use. I think your > >>> >>> > >> >> technology would > >>> >>> > >> >> be at the right place in Apache Aries, so if you're happy to > >>> >>> > >> >> donate it > >>> >>> > >> >> I would be happy to support that and I can find out the > >>> >>> > >> >> process by > >>> >>> > >> >> which this should be done. > >>> >>> > >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> All the best, > >>> >>> > >> >> > >>> >>> > >> >> David > >>> >>> > >> > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >> > >>
