String dynPkgName = ((Requirement)
dynamics[i]).getPackageName();
boolean wildcard = (dynPkgName.lastIndexOf(".*") >= 0);
dynPkgName = (wildcard)
? dynPkgName.substring(0, dynPkgName.length() - 2) :
dynPkgName;
if (dynPkgName.equals("*") ||
pkgName.equals(dynPkgName) ||
(wildcard && pkgName.startsWith(dynPkgName + ".")))
{
// Find candidate...
}
-> richard
Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Just from looking at the code, it seems ok. Also keeping the trailing
dot
> for the prefix check seems reasonable. But leaving the dot would fail
the
> equality check.
>
> Given dynPkgName="com.package.*" and pkgName="com.package". In this
case,
> the dynPkgName would be shortened to "com.package.", which would
neither
> evaluate to true for pkgName.equals(dynPkgName) nor
> pkgName.startsWith(dynPkgName).
> [ Given that "com.package.*" should match "com.package". ]
>
> How about this solution :
>
> // Ignore any dynamic requirements whose packages don't
> match.
> String dynPkgName = ((Requirement)
> dynamics[i]).getPackageName();
> boolean wildcard = (dynPkgName.lastIndexOf(".*") >= 0);
> if (wildcard)
> {
> dynPkgName = dynPkgName.substring(0,
> dynPkgName.length()
> - 1):
> pkgName += ".";
> {
> if (dynPkgName.equals("*") ||
> pkgName.equals(dynPkgName) ||
> (wildcard && pkgName.startsWith(dynPkgName)))
> {
> // Find candidate...
> }
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>
> On 1/24/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> > Felix,
>> >
>> > Your patch seems ok for now, although I would like to eventually
>> > optimize this away if possible.
>> >
>> > I have modified your patch slightly to make it a positive test,
rather
>> > than a negative test, and have also extended it to catch more
cases.
>> > Here is the gist of the patch now, let me know if it looks like it
>> > will work for you:
>> >
>> > // Ignore any dynamic requirements whose packages
don't
>> > match.
>> > String dynPkgName = ((Requirement)
>> > dynamics[i]).getPackageName();
>> > boolean wildcard = (dynPkgName.lastIndexOf(".*") >=
0);
>> > dynPkgName = (wildcard)
>> > ? dynPkgName.substring(0, dynPkgName.length()
- 2)
>> > : dynPkgName;
>> > if (dynPkgName.equals("*") ||
>> > pkgName.equals(dynPkgName) ||
>> > (wildcard && pkgName.startsWith(dynPkgName)))
>> > {
>> > // Find candidate...
>> > }
>>
>> Actually, I think that should be "- 1" instead of "- 2", because we
will
>> want to keep the "." so when we do "startsWith()" it will correctly
>> match package names.
>>
>> -> richard
>> >
>> > -> richard
>> >
>> > Felix Meschberger wrote:
>> >> HI Richard,
>> >>
>> >> I updated my local framework copy from SVN today and noticed, that
>> >> performance degraded remarkably for bundles using
>> DynamicImport-Package.
>> >> After looking around a while, I saw, that
>> >> R4SearchPolicyCore.attemptDynamicImport looks after dynamic
>> >> Requirements and
>> >> builds a filter from the requirement filter and the requested
>> >> package. This
>> >> filter is then used to scan all bundles ... Using this over and
over
>> >> is very
>> >> expensive.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder, whether this small (somewhat hacky) fix is legal [ at
least
>> it
>> >> does seem to work for me, yet I am not sure, whether this is
>> acceptable)
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------
>> >> Index:
>> >>
>>
src/main/java/org/apache/felix/framework/searchpolicy/R4SearchPolicyCore.java
>>
>> >>
>> >>
===================================================================
>> >> ---
>> >>
>>
src/main/java/org/apache/felix/framework/searchpolicy/R4SearchPolicyCore.java
>>
>> >>
>> >> (revision 499005)
>> >> +++
>> >>
>>
src/main/java/org/apache/felix/framework/searchpolicy/R4SearchPolicyCore.java
>>
>> >>
>> >> (working copy)
>> >> @@ -510,6 +510,17 @@
>> >> // is necessary because we cannot easily determine
>> which
>> >> // package name a given dynamic requirement
matches,
>> >> since
>> >> // it is only a filter.
>> >> +
>> >> + // do not consider dynamic packags not
matching the
>> >> requested
>> >> + if ( ICapability.PACKAGE_NAMESPACE.equals(
>> >> dynamics[i].getNamespace() ) )
>> >> + {
>> >> + String dynPack = ( ( Requirement )
dynamics[i]
>> >> ).getPackageName();
>> >> + if ( !pkgName.equals( dynPack ) && !(
pkgName +
>> >> ".*"
>> >> ).equals( dynPack ) )
>> >> + {
>> >> + continue;
>> >> + }
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> IRequirement req = null;
>> >> try
>> >> {
>> >> -------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you think ?
>> >>
>> >> Regards and Thanks
>> >> Felix
>> >>
>> >> PS: Yes I know, that this is work in progress :-)
>> >>
>> >> On 1/22/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Steven E. Harris wrote:
>> >>> > "Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> In short, the module loader abstraction previously worked in
>> terms
>> >>> >> of exports/imports, but now it has been generalized to work in
>> terms
>> >>> >> of capabilities/requirements. A capability is simply a set of
>> >>> >> properties, while a requirement is a filter over a set of
>> >>> >> properties.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Does this mean that some of the capabilities and requirements
>> types
>> >>> > from the OBR bundle will be moved (or copied) into Felix
proper?
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Essentially, yes. I have had to make some modifications to their
>> >>> implementation for the time being, but I hope to continue to work
on
>> >>> them to make them more generic like the original OBR types.
>> >>>
>> >>> -> richard
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
