sorry for the delay... patches are uploaded to [1] and the itests are running.
I'll apply on Tuesday if there are no additional remarks. Kind regards, Andreas [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KARAF-1878 On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Freeman Fang <freeman.f...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
