+1 Thanks －－－－－－－－－－－－－ Freeman Fang
Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Web: http://fusesource.com | http://www.redhat.com/ Twitter: freemanfang Blog: http://freemanfang.blogspot.com http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1473905042 weibo: http://weibo.com/u/1473905042 On 2012-9-28, at 下午11:42, Andreas Pieber wrote: > OK, just to conclude that part of the discussion: After some discussion on > IRC Christian and I both think that the TreeSet is the better solution of > the HashSet since it does only optimize the bahvior instead of completely > changing it. We all know that startup dependencies are a pretty bad thing > and that only the start lvl should be used to handle this problem, but > still, we simply don't want to break some big not so well designed business > applications since those guys are definitely going to blame Karaf... > > Therefore I would propose the following: (a) handle the start lvl per > default on trunk and add a deprecated property to switch to the old > behavior ignoring the startLvl. We can remove it for Karaf 4.0. In addition > I'll backport the patch to 2.3 and use the old behavior which ignores start > lvls completely. The same property can be used here to activate the > startlvl handling. In addition I'll update the documentation with this new > behavior. I'll finish all those things first tomorrow morning, attach the > patches to the current JIRA and give you at least till Tuesday to test and > review the patches before I apply them. > > Anyone OK by this? > > Kind regards, > Andreas > On Sep 28, 2012 11:52 AM, "Christian Schneider" <ch...@die-schneider.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Andreas,, >> >> sorry my fault. I meant the HashSet but obviously this would not help as >> we then would have to mock the bundle.equals method I think. >> >> So the more important thing would be to replace the Bundle object with >> just its id. As obviously we would >> not need to mock Longs but we currently have to mock the Bundle objects. >> So in that case I think it would not matter much if we use TreeSet or >> HashSet. >> >> But I am not sure if this is easy to do or would have some other problems. >> >> Christian >> >> On 09/28/2012 11:45 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: >> >>> Ok, now I get you. You want to use a hash map instead of an treeset (it >>> was >>> a hashset(!)) temporary. But I'm not quite sure how this will help in >>> testing? Neither by storing the id in a set nor in a hash map? Please >>> explain. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Andreas >>> On Sep 28, 2012 11:31 AM, "Christian Schneider" <ch...@die-schneider.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>
