Hi,
On 4 oct. 2013, at 10:04, Bengt Rodehav <[email protected]> wrote: > I discussed this with Clement on another thread ("iPOJO and dynamic > requires") but thought I'd start a new thread that better describes the > subject. > > A little background... > > Using iPOJO (currently 1.8.6), I have a system where I'm using a > life-cycle-controller (@Controller) to enable(start) / disable(stop) my > services. A lot of the services are Camel routes that are then started and > stopped by changing a config admin property (in a GUI). > > Basically the code looks like this: > > @Controller > @Property(name = "enabled", mandatory = true, value = "false") > private boolean mValid; > > @Validate > public void start() { > System.out.println("Starting... valid is: " + mValid); > // Start the Camel route > } > > @Invalidate > public void stop() { > System.out.println("Stopping... valid is: " + mValid); > // Stop the Camel route > } > > On startup, if the "enabled" property is set to false, nothing is logged. > When I set the enabled property to true I get: > > Starting... valid is: true > > If I then set the enabled property to false I get: > > Stopping... valid is: false > > This is the way I want it to work. I use the "enabled" property to > start/stop my services. > > However, I now need to make the life-cycle controller more dynamic. In > addition to looking at the "enabled" property I also want to add my custom > extra constraints. Something like this: > > private boolean mValid; > > @Property(name = "enabled", mandatory = true, value = "false") > public void setValid(boolean theValid) { > System.out.println("Setting valid to: " + theValid); > mValid = theValid; > mAggregateValid = mValid; // I also add extra constraints not shown > here: mAggregateValid = mValid && <extra constraints> > } > > @Controller > private boolean mAggregateValid; > > @Validate > public void start() { > System.out.println("Starting... mValid is: " + mValid + ", > mAggregateValid is: " + mAggregateValid); > // Start the Camel route > } > > @Invalidate > public void stop() { > System.out.println("Stopping... mValid is: " + mValid + ", > mAggregateValid is: " + mAggregateValid); > // Stop the Camel route > } > > I now get: > > Starting... mValid is: false, mAggregateValid is: false > Stopping... mValid is: false, mAggregateValid is: false > > This is not the way I wanted. Although I've set the @Controller to > "mAggregateValid", the instance is becoming valid when the mAggregateValid > is false. It does stop shortly afterwards but I get a false start this way > that gives me problems. > > Question 1: Why does the instance become valid despite the fact that my > life-cycle-controller is false? Because the instance lifecycle controller does not allowed default value. > > Clement, you suggested that I should use the @ServiceController instead. I > tried this but it seems like the @Validate callback will be called no > matter what value my @ServiceController has. I noticed that there are other > callbacks that I might be able to use instead: @PostRegistration and > @PostUnregistration. However, they seem to be called "after the fact". If I > use those callbacks to actually start my services it would mean that I > first publish a service and afterwards make it work. Should be the other > way around. > > Question 2: For my use case, should I use @Controller or @ServiceController In your case you should use @ServiceController. I've published a new page about controllers: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-ipojo/apache-felix-ipojo-userguide/instance-vs-service-controller.html > > Looking at the annotations documentation ( > http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-ipojo/apache-felix-ipojo-gettingstarted/how-to-use-ipojo-annotations.html) > I noticed that @Controller is not mentioned at all. > > Question 3: Is @Controller deprecated or does the documentation need to be > updated? This is a mistake…. We will add it ASAP. Regards, Clement > > When the new version of iPOJO is released I might not need to use an > "aggregated controller" but could use interceptors instead (see my original > thread). But I would still like to know why I can't get the above to work > correctly. > > Thanks, > > /Bengt
