I also agree with GREEDY as a general rule for any STATIC unary references.
On top of the reasons proposed by Carsten and David, what a developer often
overlooks is the "plugability" of the system.
Whenever you use OSGi services, the natural assumption is that the "best"
service will be used base
If you've bothered to set the service ranking, then in theory it matters which
one you get :-)
I like the default of preferring greedy in order to get reproducible results.
Configurable choices would be ok for experts :-)
David Jencks
> On Sep 25, 2018, at 11:14 PM, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
As a general remark:
I guess all current checks in that plugin are debatable. It currently
contains checks that we found useful. And I think we'll make them
configurable in a future version of the plugin.
For this specific check, it's there to ensure a reproducible system
regardless of in which o
I’m not quite sure exactly what you are asking, and I don’t know what policy
preference this plugin thinks is a good idea but...
If a static reference goes away, of course the component instance will get
deactivated, and if there’s another suitable service available a new instance
will get activ
Hey all,
A question on checkGreedyReferences() in the new osgicheck-maven-plugin, we got
a lot of warnings about our static @Reference's needing to be greedy.
From the `ReferecePolicy.STATIC` java doc:
> If a target service is available to replace the bound service which became
> unavailable,
