You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Richard S. Hall (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2013/02/01 22:06:14 UTC
[jira] [Resolved] (FELIX-3713) Bundle.start() returns without
starting the bundle
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3713?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Richard S. Hall resolved FELIX-3713.
------------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Richard S. Hall
I just committed a patch that modifies start level handling such that we always process transiently started bundles synchronously, which means they'll either be started on the calling thread if they meet the active start level or they will throw an exception if they don't. Please close if satisfied. Thanks.
> Bundle.start() returns without starting the bundle
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-3713
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3713
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Framework
> Affects Versions: framework-4.0.2
> Reporter: Sahoo
> Assignee: Richard S. Hall
> Fix For: framework-4.2.0
>
>
> See email exchange between Sahoo & Richard that happened in dev alias on 16th Oct 2012 for issue details:
> > While investigating some issues in GlassFish, what we are seeing is that even if our code is calling bundle.start(START_TRANSIENT), the bundle is not getting started immediately, nor is the code blocking. It simply returns without Bundle's activator getting called and bundle.getState() == RESOLVED. We see this happening when there is a start level change in progress. We are currently using Felix 4.0.2. Looking at the code, I see this to be by design, but isn't it a non-compliant behavior? Should bundle.start() not wait until the bundle is started?
> The spec has always been a little lenient about how start levels are processed to give leeway to the frameworks. For us, we viewed this as somewhat of a race condition between threads starting bundles and the start level thread.
> However, in the transient case, I wouldn't expect it to remain in RESOLVED state. If its start level wasn't met, it should have thrown an exception. Yet there is a chance in the transient case that it could start asynchronously...not sure if this would really be problematic for you or not...
> But it shouldn't remain in the RESOLVED state. Looking at the code, I think there is a bug in this scenario where a transient bundle that is handled asynchronously will not actually end up getting started since the start level thread checks the persistent state of the bundle, which is not set for transient bundles.
> You could definitely open up a bug for this last issue...
> -> richard
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira