Felix: great. can you please share link - what do you mean by "upcoming spec "? Andrei.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [DS] Feedback wanted on some ideas From: Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Fri 05 Oct 2012 01:48:41 PM CDT > Hi, > > Am 03.10.2012 um 19:39 schrieb Andrei Pozolotin: > >> great ideas; one more for your consideration >> http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v41/org/osgi/service/component/ComponentContext.html#enableComponent(java.lang.String) >> <http://www.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v41/org/osgi/service/component/ComponentContext.html#enableComponent%28java.lang.String%29> >> """ >> >> public void *enableComponent*(java.lang.String name) >> >> Enables the specified component name. The specified component name >> must be in the same bundle as this component. >> >> """ >> >> instead, I suggest to permit traversal of bundle boundaries, so >> enable/disable target can be anywhere. > No. This would open security doors/holes. > > And as David indicates: The ScrService as well as the upcoming spec will > allow for administrative enablement and disablement accross bundle boundaries > (and the spec will include security considerations). > > Regards > Felix > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [DS] Feedback wanted on some ideas >> From: David Jencks <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Wed 03 Oct 2012 12:28:49 PM CDT >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> For these two, I'm wondering if they would be useful enough to propose for >>> the DS 1.3 spec. >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> 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. 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. >>> >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> >>> >
