[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re[2]: [equinox-dev] BundleContext and getName
|
OK, I propose -again- to register the bundle objects as a service with all the
attributes from the manifest (and more). This service should be registered with the
bundle itself as owner. This would allow full searching and it automatically
handles the visibility issue because you are only allowed to see
the service of bundles that you are compatible with.
I also see that we need a "namespace" id on services to handle the
issue of different namespaces in registry.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
BR> I guess my big disagreement is with the idea that for something to be
BR> clear and concrete you must reflect it in the API as a method. You can
BR> have a clear spec and concrete exposure by defining a constant that you
BR> can use in a filter. That is what we do for sid and pid in the example
BR> of service properties. We could have added getSID() and getPID() methods
BR> to ServiceReference. By changing the API you cast in stone something
BR> that you may want to change further down the road.
BR> Further, whatever you come up with you will need the option to see all
BR> the bundles, otherwise you will break management type bundles. (I tend
BR> to agree that you shouldn't change the semantics of getBundles()...)
BR> Your example using filters would be:
BR> Filter foo = new Filter("("+Constants.BUNDLE_UNIQUEID+"=Foo)");
BR> Bundle bundles[] = context.getBundles(foo);
BR> By doing this you could do things like bypass version filtering (getting
BR> around the problem of not seeing all bundles):
BR> Filter foo = new
BR> Filter("&("+Constants.BUNDLE_UNIQUEID+"=Foo)("+Constants.BUNDLE_VERSION+"=*)");
BR> // Gets all versions
BR> or
BR> Filter foo = new
BR> Filter("&("+Constants.BUNDLE_UNIQUEID+"=Foo)("+Constants.BUNDLE_VERSION+"=2.*)");
BR> // Gets all 2.X versions
BR> my 3 cents
BR> ben
BR> ps - I REALLY hate naming discussions and I won't participate in
BR> discussions on naming topics, but uniqueID is a really BAD name! There
BR> are already two unique ids: Bundle ID and Bundle location. Calling
BR> another identifier the unique id is very confusing!
BR> Jeff McAffer wrote:
>>
>> yes and no. Yes, the unique id of a bundle is in the manifest for
>> that bundle. There may be several bundles with the same unique id but
>> different version numbers. Each of these would have manifests with
>> the the header
>> Bundle-UniqueId: Foo (or some such)
>> but
>> Bundle-Version:
>> headers with different values
>>
>> For some bundle Bar which can "see" a bundle Foo, the system will
>> determine a particular version of Foo to present to Bar. It is this
>> Foo which Bar.getBundleContext().getBundle("Foo") should return.
>>
>> So, to implement this using just getHeaders() you have to do something
>> like
>> Bundle[] bundles = Bar.getBundles()
>> for each b in bundles
>> String id= b.getHeaders().get("Bundle-UniqueId")
>> if (id.equals("Foo"))
>> return b
>> return null
>>
>> Note that this only works if Bar.getBundles() returns only those
>> bundles which Bar can see (as determined by the system). Some have
>> argued that this is an unacceptable semantic change. That is, people
>> expect getBundles() to return all installed bundles. If it did that,
>> then the list would include several Foo bundles and we would not know
>> which one to pick. Note that either way you cut it, the code above is
>> slow.
>>
>> Ultimately what is being discussed is the introduction of a
>> semantically meaningful/powerful symbolic identifier for bundles that
>> is independent of origin (location) and install circumstances (i.e.,
>> when it was installed). This is in support of bundles as modules and
>> other work where one bundle needs to refer to another bundle. The
>> argument is that this particular header is not "just another header"
>> and it warrants concrete exposure on the API of Bundle/BundleContext.
>> Doing so allows for a clearer specification as well as easier, more
>> efficient code.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Benjamin Reed <breed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
>>
>> 10/07/2003 02:03 PM
>>
>>
>> To: Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
>> cc: equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, BJ Hargrave
>> <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, pkriens
>> <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] BundleContext and getName
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If the framework reconciles the view of each bundle, you still don't
>> have a problem searching headers. We have the same thing with
>> permissions and service registry -- the framework makes sure you only
>> see services that you are allowed to get.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, everything you are trying to search on is
>> contained in the manifest. Right?
>>
>> ben
>>
>> Jeff McAffer wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I too am in favour of keeping the interfaces simple but there is a
>> > subtle point about function in question. In the context of possible
>> > multiple version support, there may be several bundles with the same
>> > uniqueId but different version numbers. One idea was that the
>> > framework would reconcile the view point of each bundle such that it
>> > "sees" at most one version of the bundles with any given unique-id.
>> > Header lookup is not equivalent in this case.
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Benjamin Reed <breed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
>> > Sent by: equinox-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > 10/06/2003 06:15 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > To: pkriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxx>
>> > cc: Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
>> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] BundleContext and getName
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually Peter, the discussion was about getting a bundle from the
>> > location, not the name. They slipped another identifier in. Rather than
>> > proliferating methods I would encourage using Bundle.getHeaders() to get
>> > information about a specific bundle. If you want to add something to
>> > BundleContext, it would seem much better to do
>> > BundleContext.getBundles(Filter filter), where you can search on any of
>> > the header fields. That way when you find out that you want to look up a
>> > bundle by another manifest property (potentially Eclipse specific) you
>> > don't have to add another method.
>> >
>> > ben
>> >
>> > Peter Kriens wrote:
>> >
>> > >I saw the discussion regarding the extra method in BundleContext to
>> > >get a bundle from its name.
>> > >
>> > >We had this discussion in the past year in the OSGi and decided
>> -not- to
>> > >extend the BundleContext interface to keep it as simple as possible.
>> > >There was quite a bit discussion about this.
>> > >
>> > >One thing that I proposed, which would more or less fit with the
>> > >existing standard, is to register the bundle objects in the registry
>> > >with properties for name, id, module, version, etc. This will allow
>> > >you search for bundles with an OSGi filter. This may be a cleaner
>> > >method than adding methods to BundleContext
>> > >
>> > >Kind regards,
>> > >
>> > > Peter Kriens
>> > >
>> > >PR> Hi,
>> > >
>> > >PR> Currently BundleContext.getName(String) uses the Bundle-name
>> > entry to do
>> > >PR> the lookup.
>> > >PR> Now that we have Bundle-uniqueId, it seems to me that it would be
>> > more
>> > >PR> appropriate to do the lookup on this value.
>> > >PR> Any comments?
>> > >
>> > >PR> PaScaL
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > equinox-dev mailing list
>> > equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Peter Kriens Mob. +46705950899
34 Place René Nelli Tel. +33467871853
34670 Baillargues, France AOL: pkriens
