Why doing it differently than for any other OSGi service? Although the service ID is not predictable in general older services beat newer services, which is IMHO good enough. I am fine with issuing a warn (if easy to implement) but I am against rejecting for consistency reasons.
Konrad > On 11. May 2022, at 17:22, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 to what Konrad said. > > Service ranking is more predictable than just using the "first" > > Regards > Carsten > > Am 11.05.2022 um 17:18 schrieb Konrad Windszus: >> IMHO the regular OSGi semantics should apply here as well, i.e. higher >> service ranking wins (if tie lower bundle id wins). That is also documented >> at >> https://sling.apache.org/documentation/the-sling-engine/servlets.html#servlet-resolution-order >> >> <https://sling.apache.org/documentation/the-sling-engine/servlets.html#servlet-resolution-order> >> In any case this should only be the last criteria if selectors, extensions >> and method are the same for more then one servlet resolution candidate. >> Throwing an exception/refusing to register the servlet is wrong and would be >> a regression. >> Konrad >>> On 11. May 2022, at 17:14, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I forgot if we discussed this already, if that's the case pointers are >>> welcome. >>> >>> Adrian Kozma created SLING-11315 about this, and I tentatively added a >>> new test [1] to explore the current behavior. >>> >>> It looks like the first registered servlet wins, but that might be >>> just by chance. >>> >>> Do people agree that Sling should refuse to register servlets that >>> have the same set of mount parameters as existing ones? >>> >>> I think that would help avoid difficult to troubleshoot situations. >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-servlets-resolver/commit/1603a0ecb2ab8b4395560c0d53d9e5569b68a568 > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe > cziege...@apache.org
