Hi David, I'm happy to see that the test helped, and it seems that fixing this issue was not an easy task, congratulation ! [?]
For now, I can't reply to your question about the bind/unbind/updated method, because I have not yet fully reviewed your fix, but this is an excellent exercise for me and I will take time to understand the changes you made. So, from my side, I confirm, the testcase is now passing. However, I have a minor remark: the felix log level is now forced to debug: see systemProperty( "ds.loglevel" ).value( "debug" ) in the ComponentTestBase class), and I think that it might be better to run the concurrent test in warn level, as before, because debug logs might reduce the chances to reproduce any potential concurrency issues ... Anyway, I tried to run the testcase with ds.loglevel=warn, and it is also passing OK. So, now, I will run again my nightly integration tests, in order to do more validation. thanks again. /pierre On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:23 AM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>wrote: > I finally got everything to work :-) (see caveats in the bug report). > > The itest was extremely helpful :-) > > One of the changes I made that perhaps could use some review is that once > the bind/unbind/updated methods are set, they are never cleared from the > dependency manager. I don't think this is really a problem. Have I missed > something? > > We talked a bit a while ago about sharing the bind/unbind/updated methods > among dependency managers and trying to make them look up the methods only > once. I've moved most of the dependencyManager state out of the dependency > managers, so we might be able to move the rest of the state out and share > the dependency managers among all the component managers for the same > component. This might be better post 1.8 however. > > Please try out the changes and let me know if you find more problems! > > thanks > david jencks > > On Sep 2, 2012, at 11:02 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > > Excellent! > > > > I've been working on my idea how to fix this, but I'm still at the stage > of getting the existing integration tests to pass. At least some stuff > works :-) > > > > Looking forward to trying out your test case... > > > > david jencks > > > > On Sep 2, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Pierre De Rop wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I committed in revision 1379968 a (candidate) integration test, which > seems > >> to reproduce the problem. > >> Hope it will help. > >> > >> regards; > >> /pierre > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Pierre De Rop <pierre.de...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Felix, > >>> > >>> ok, I will try to do it. > >>> > >>> regards; > >>> /pierre > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com > >wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Am 31.08.2012 um 02:20 schrieb Pierre De Rop: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi David, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have progressed and it seems that now I can reproduce the problem, > >>>> using > >>>>> a sample code. > >>>>> It's a sample inspired from the scenario that you suggested in your > >>>>> previous post, with A > B > C, and A > C ... > >>>>> > >>>>> I will create a jira issue and will attach the sample to it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks alot. > >>>> > >>>> Would be great if we could integrate that sample as an integration > test > >>>> case. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Felix > >>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
