I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed.
2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: > 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_jen...@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.bosscha...@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 <gno...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks <david_jen...@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.bosscha...@gmail.com> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
