Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Karl actually found that issue with the security tests was that the certificate used by the CT had expired. This has been fixed in the CT by BJ, but is obviously not included in the original R5 CT tag. As Karl suggested, I ran the security related tests with my computer clock turned back and they're all passing now. You can find my CT test results here: http://people.apache.org/~davidb/felix_osgi_r5/ So as far as I can see, we're good for a Framework release that supports the OSGi Core R5 specs at this stage. Cheers, David On 13 March 2014 02:39, David Bosschaert wrote: > I have run the framework on trunk throught the OSGi R5 CT: > org.osgi.test.cases.framework > org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch > The about suites are all passing. > > I did run into some issues around the security tests: > org.osgi.test.cases.framework.secure > org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch.secure > > I passed on the details to Karl, hopefully he can figure out what's > going on there ... > > Cheers, > > David > > On 13 March 2014 08:04, David Bosschaert wrote: >> That would be fantastic, Karl! >> >> I think the issues around the locking are now resolved: FELIX-4190 is >> resolved and I think we can close FELIX-3687 as well (correct David >> J?). >> I'll run trunk through the OSGi R5 CT today to double check that >> everything is still passing there and will let you know when that's >> done. >> >> Cheers, >> >> David >> >> On 11 March 2014 12:58, Karl Pauls wrote: >>> If you want me to I can cut the release if you let me know when it is >>> ready... >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Bosschaert < >>> david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on Guillaume's updated patch? If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release process rolling. Cheers, David On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. > > > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > >> 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 : >> >> 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 wrote: >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >>> >> >>> >>> 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 >>> 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 resolv
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I have run the framework on trunk throught the OSGi R5 CT: org.osgi.test.cases.framework org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch The about suites are all passing. I did run into some issues around the security tests: org.osgi.test.cases.framework.secure org.osgi.test.cases.framework.launch.secure I passed on the details to Karl, hopefully he can figure out what's going on there ... Cheers, David On 13 March 2014 08:04, David Bosschaert wrote: > That would be fantastic, Karl! > > I think the issues around the locking are now resolved: FELIX-4190 is > resolved and I think we can close FELIX-3687 as well (correct David > J?). > I'll run trunk through the OSGi R5 CT today to double check that > everything is still passing there and will let you know when that's > done. > > Cheers, > > David > > On 11 March 2014 12:58, Karl Pauls wrote: >> If you want me to I can cut the release if you let me know when it is >> ready... >> >> regards, >> >> Karl >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Bosschaert < >> david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on >>> Guillaume's updated patch? >>> If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release >>> process rolling. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> David >>> >>> On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : >>> > >>> >> 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 : >>> >> >>> >> 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 wrote: >>> >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one >>> ;-) >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> 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 insid
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
That would be fantastic, Karl! I think the issues around the locking are now resolved: FELIX-4190 is resolved and I think we can close FELIX-3687 as well (correct David J?). I'll run trunk through the OSGi R5 CT today to double check that everything is still passing there and will let you know when that's done. Cheers, David On 11 March 2014 12:58, Karl Pauls wrote: > If you want me to I can cut the release if you let me know when it is > ready... > > regards, > > Karl > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Bosschaert < > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on >> Guillaume's updated patch? >> If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release >> process rolling. >> >> Cheers, >> >> David >> >> On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. >> > >> > >> > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : >> > >> >> 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 : >> >> >> >> 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 wrote: >> >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one >> ;-) >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> >>> 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 >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Karl Pauls > karlpa...@gmail.com > http://twitter.com/karlpauls > http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlpauls > https://profiles.google.com/karlpauls
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I'll commit a fix asap (hopefully tomorrow evening). 2014-03-11 20:24 GMT+01:00 David Jencks : > I'm OK with Guillames updated patch idea. > > many thanks > david jencks > > On Mar 11, 2014, at 1:50 AM, David Bosschaert > wrote: > > > I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on > > Guillaume's updated patch? > > If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release > > process rolling. > > > > Cheers, > > > > David > > > > On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. > >> > >> > >> 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > >> > >>> 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 : > >>> > >>> 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 wrote: > >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one > ;-) > >> > >> > >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks > >> > >>> 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 > 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 > >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I'm OK with Guillames updated patch idea. many thanks david jencks On Mar 11, 2014, at 1:50 AM, David Bosschaert wrote: > I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on > Guillaume's updated patch? > If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release > process rolling. > > Cheers, > > David > > On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. >> >> >> 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : >> >>> 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 : >>> >>> 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 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 wrote: >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >> >> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >> >>> 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 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 >>> >>> >>>
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
If you want me to I can cut the release if you let me know when it is ready... regards, Karl On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, David Bosschaert < david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on > Guillaume's updated patch? > If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release > process rolling. > > Cheers, > > David > > On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. > > > > > > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > > > >> 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 : > >> > >> 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 wrote: > >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one > ;-) > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks > >>> >> > >>> >>> 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 > >>> 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 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com http://twitter.com/karlpauls http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlpauls https://profiles.google.com/karlpauls
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I would really like to start getting this release out, any comments on Guillaume's updated patch? If nobody has any comments I can just apply it and get the release process rolling. Cheers, David On 24 February 2014 14:07, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. > > > 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > >> 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 : >> >> 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 >>> 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 wrote: >>> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >>> >> >>> >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I just proposed a patch for FELIX-4190, so comments are welcomed. 2014-02-24 9:50 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet : > 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 : > > 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 >> 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 wrote: >> >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >> >> >> >>> 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 >> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
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 : > 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 > 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 wrote: > >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) > >> > >> > >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks > >> > >>> 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 > 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 > >>> > >>> > >
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Hi David, I'm analysing a potential issue about a bundle cache corruption. I should be able to get back to you very soon (with a Jira and a patch). Regards JB On 02/23/2014 05:14 PM, David Bosschaert 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 wrote: I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) 2014-01-18 David Jencks 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 wrote: On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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 -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
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 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 wrote: >> I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) >> >> >> 2014-01-18 David Jencks >> >>> 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 >>> wrote: >>> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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 >>> >>>
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
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 wrote: > I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) > > > 2014-01-18 David Jencks > >> 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 >> wrote: >> >> > On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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 >> >>
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
I don't have any problem reverting my fix if you have a better one ;-) 2014-01-18 David Jencks > 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 > wrote: > > > On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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 > >
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Yes, it would be good to sort out the issues surrounding FELIX-3687/FELIX-4190. Richard/Guillaume any thoughts here? At this point we have all the Core R5 CT tests passing (yay!). There is one subtask of FELIX-4128 still open. That's really just a nice-to-have cleanup that I'd like to do soon. Cheers, David On 18 January 2014 22:23, David Jencks wrote: > 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 > wrote: > >> On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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 >
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
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 wrote: > On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
On 17 January 2014 16:16, Carsten Ziegeler 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
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
+1 for a new framework release, it would be great to have full R5 support, but if that is not supposed to happen soon, a new release would enable people at least to use the subsystems implementation. Carsten 2014/1/17 Jean-Baptiste Onofré > +1 (non-binding) > > Regards > JB > > > On 01/17/2014 04:44 PM, David Bosschaert wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just wondering what people think... Would it make sense to do a Felix >> Framework release in the near future? >> Quite a lot of work has gone into moving Felix towards Core R5 >> support. While we're not 100% there yet (the remaining issues are in >> the Resolver and ResolverHooks area [1]) I think it's definitely moved >> on, as for example you can now run Subsystems on Felix. >> >> Thoughts, anyone? I'm happy to help get that release out, if needed :) >> >> Cheers, >> >> David >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4128 >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > jbono...@apache.org > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
Re: Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
+1 (non-binding) Regards JB On 01/17/2014 04:44 PM, David Bosschaert wrote: Hi all, Just wondering what people think... Would it make sense to do a Felix Framework release in the near future? Quite a lot of work has gone into moving Felix towards Core R5 support. While we're not 100% there yet (the remaining issues are in the Resolver and ResolverHooks area [1]) I think it's definitely moved on, as for example you can now run Subsystems on Felix. Thoughts, anyone? I'm happy to help get that release out, if needed :) Cheers, David [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4128 -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com
Maybe a Felix Framework release sometime soon?
Hi all, Just wondering what people think... Would it make sense to do a Felix Framework release in the near future? Quite a lot of work has gone into moving Felix towards Core R5 support. While we're not 100% there yet (the remaining issues are in the Resolver and ResolverHooks area [1]) I think it's definitely moved on, as for example you can now run Subsystems on Felix. Thoughts, anyone? I'm happy to help get that release out, if needed :) Cheers, David [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4128
