You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com> on 2010/03/10 20:38:19 UTC
[FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Hi,
I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
order.
I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
(at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
correct dependency order.
Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
best regards, Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>.
I filed a Jira task.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-2201
best regards, Peter
2010/3/11 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
> Yes exactly. I'm just thinking of the file's last modification time.
>
> I guess you are right about the design. In this case the artifacts are
> basically sets of "library bundles" that export packages rather than
> services so there is not much I can do about that situation without
> putting in a lot of effort.
>
> best regards, Peter
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But how do you want to do that ?
>> If you restart from a clean state, you don't have any prior information ?
>> Or do I miss something. Are you thinking about the last modification
>> date of the file itself ?
>>
>> Also you may want to investigate why your three artifacts have to be
>> deployed in significant order.
>> In OSGi, this usually means a bad design (not relying on OSGi service,
>> or not expecting an OSGi service to be absent).
>>
>> 2010/3/11 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Guillame,
>>>
>>> The scenario is quite simple. I have three artifacts that my custom
>>> ArtifactInstaller can handle. Call them A, B and C.
>>> Also, C is dependent on the availability of B, which in turn is
>>> dependent on artifact A.
>>> That is, the deployment order needs to be A, followed by B, followed by C.
>>>
>>> At runtime, deploying these artifacts in the specified order works
>>> fine. The ArtifactInstaller gets called to install each of the
>>> artifacts in the order of deployment. In this case all artifacts will
>>> be properly installed.
>>>
>>> Now, the framework is shut down and restarted fresh (with -clean flag
>>> in equinox). This time, however, my ArtifactInstaller will be asked to
>>> install the artifacts in the order C, A, B which will result in only A
>>> and B being properly installed. If the directory watcher of
>>> FileInstall honored the original deployment order ("oldest-first") the
>>> deployment would succeed without needing to build in any special logic
>>> in my ArtifactInstaller.
>>>
>>> I was just thinking that processing artifacts in "oldest-first" order
>>> rather than "no-order" would be a non-intrusive change that can have
>>> some nice benefits in terms of reduced complexity of custom
>>> ArtifactInstallers.
>>>
>>> Does that make any sense?
>>>
>>> best regards, Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And what kind of behavior do you see ? I mean how does it affect the
>>>> runtime in any way ?
>>>>
>>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
>>>>> The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
>>>>> reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
>>>>>> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
>>>>>> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
>>>>>> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
>>>>>> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
>>>>>> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>>>>>>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>>>>>>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>>>>>>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>>>>>>> order.
>>>>>>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>>>>>>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>>>>>>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>>>>>>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>>>>>>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>>>>>>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>>>>>>> correct dependency order.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>.
Yes exactly. I'm just thinking of the file's last modification time.
I guess you are right about the design. In this case the artifacts are
basically sets of "library bundles" that export packages rather than
services so there is not much I can do about that situation without
putting in a lot of effort.
best regards, Peter
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But how do you want to do that ?
> If you restart from a clean state, you don't have any prior information ?
> Or do I miss something. Are you thinking about the last modification
> date of the file itself ?
>
> Also you may want to investigate why your three artifacts have to be
> deployed in significant order.
> In OSGi, this usually means a bad design (not relying on OSGi service,
> or not expecting an OSGi service to be absent).
>
> 2010/3/11 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Guillame,
>>
>> The scenario is quite simple. I have three artifacts that my custom
>> ArtifactInstaller can handle. Call them A, B and C.
>> Also, C is dependent on the availability of B, which in turn is
>> dependent on artifact A.
>> That is, the deployment order needs to be A, followed by B, followed by C.
>>
>> At runtime, deploying these artifacts in the specified order works
>> fine. The ArtifactInstaller gets called to install each of the
>> artifacts in the order of deployment. In this case all artifacts will
>> be properly installed.
>>
>> Now, the framework is shut down and restarted fresh (with -clean flag
>> in equinox). This time, however, my ArtifactInstaller will be asked to
>> install the artifacts in the order C, A, B which will result in only A
>> and B being properly installed. If the directory watcher of
>> FileInstall honored the original deployment order ("oldest-first") the
>> deployment would succeed without needing to build in any special logic
>> in my ArtifactInstaller.
>>
>> I was just thinking that processing artifacts in "oldest-first" order
>> rather than "no-order" would be a non-intrusive change that can have
>> some nice benefits in terms of reduced complexity of custom
>> ArtifactInstallers.
>>
>> Does that make any sense?
>>
>> best regards, Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And what kind of behavior do you see ? I mean how does it affect the
>>> runtime in any way ?
>>>
>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
>>>> The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
>>>> reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
>>>>
>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
>>>>> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
>>>>> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
>>>>> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
>>>>> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
>>>>> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>>>>>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>>>>>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>>>>>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>>>>>> order.
>>>>>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>>>>>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>>>>>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>>>>>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>>>>>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>>>>>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>>>>>> correct dependency order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
But how do you want to do that ?
If you restart from a clean state, you don't have any prior information ?
Or do I miss something. Are you thinking about the last modification
date of the file itself ?
Also you may want to investigate why your three artifacts have to be
deployed in significant order.
In OSGi, this usually means a bad design (not relying on OSGi service,
or not expecting an OSGi service to be absent).
2010/3/11 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Guillame,
>
> The scenario is quite simple. I have three artifacts that my custom
> ArtifactInstaller can handle. Call them A, B and C.
> Also, C is dependent on the availability of B, which in turn is
> dependent on artifact A.
> That is, the deployment order needs to be A, followed by B, followed by C.
>
> At runtime, deploying these artifacts in the specified order works
> fine. The ArtifactInstaller gets called to install each of the
> artifacts in the order of deployment. In this case all artifacts will
> be properly installed.
>
> Now, the framework is shut down and restarted fresh (with -clean flag
> in equinox). This time, however, my ArtifactInstaller will be asked to
> install the artifacts in the order C, A, B which will result in only A
> and B being properly installed. If the directory watcher of
> FileInstall honored the original deployment order ("oldest-first") the
> deployment would succeed without needing to build in any special logic
> in my ArtifactInstaller.
>
> I was just thinking that processing artifacts in "oldest-first" order
> rather than "no-order" would be a non-intrusive change that can have
> some nice benefits in terms of reduced complexity of custom
> ArtifactInstallers.
>
> Does that make any sense?
>
> best regards, Peter
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And what kind of behavior do you see ? I mean how does it affect the
>> runtime in any way ?
>>
>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>> Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
>>> The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
>>> reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
>>>
>>> best regards, Peter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
>>>> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
>>>> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
>>>> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>>>>
>>>> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
>>>> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
>>>> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>>>>
>>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>>>>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>>>>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>>>>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>>>>> order.
>>>>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>>>>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>>>>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>>>>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>>>>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>>>>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>>>>> correct dependency order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>.
Hi Guillame,
The scenario is quite simple. I have three artifacts that my custom
ArtifactInstaller can handle. Call them A, B and C.
Also, C is dependent on the availability of B, which in turn is
dependent on artifact A.
That is, the deployment order needs to be A, followed by B, followed by C.
At runtime, deploying these artifacts in the specified order works
fine. The ArtifactInstaller gets called to install each of the
artifacts in the order of deployment. In this case all artifacts will
be properly installed.
Now, the framework is shut down and restarted fresh (with -clean flag
in equinox). This time, however, my ArtifactInstaller will be asked to
install the artifacts in the order C, A, B which will result in only A
and B being properly installed. If the directory watcher of
FileInstall honored the original deployment order ("oldest-first") the
deployment would succeed without needing to build in any special logic
in my ArtifactInstaller.
I was just thinking that processing artifacts in "oldest-first" order
rather than "no-order" would be a non-intrusive change that can have
some nice benefits in terms of reduced complexity of custom
ArtifactInstallers.
Does that make any sense?
best regards, Peter
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And what kind of behavior do you see ? I mean how does it affect the
> runtime in any way ?
>
> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>> Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
>> The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
>> reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
>>
>> best regards, Peter
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
>>> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
>>> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
>>> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>>>
>>> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
>>> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
>>> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>>>
>>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>>>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>>>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>>>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>>>> order.
>>>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>>>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>>>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>>>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>>>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>>>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>>>> correct dependency order.
>>>>
>>>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>>>
>>>> best regards, Peter
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
And what kind of behavior do you see ? I mean how does it affect the
runtime in any way ?
2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
> Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
> The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
> reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
>
> best regards, Peter
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
>> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
>> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
>> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>>
>> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
>> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
>> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>>
>> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>>> order.
>>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>>> correct dependency order.
>>>
>>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>>
>>> best regards, Peter
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>.
Right, the problem is not when artifacts are dropped in at runtime.
The problem is that after a framework restart, the artifacts get
reported out of order (that is, not in deployment order).
best regards, Peter
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
> delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
> bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
> not the case, I would think this is a bug.
>
> The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
> started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
> bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
>
> 2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
>> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
>> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
>> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
>> order.
>> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
>> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
>> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
>> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
>> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
>> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
>> correct dependency order.
>>
>> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>>
>> best regards, Peter
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: [FileInstall] "oldest-first" artifact processing order?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
The deployment order should not be significant, unless there is a huge
delay between copying two files, but in that case, trying to order the
bundles won't matter, since some won't be available at all. If that's
not the case, I would think this is a bug.
The main reason is that all bundles are installed before being
started, so you should not have any resolution problems, since all the
bundles will be installed when the first one is resolved.
2010/3/10 Peter Gardfjäll <pe...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I've been experimenting some with writing a custom ArtifactInstaller
> to extend the functionality of FileInstall.
> As part of this effort, I have observed that the directory watcher
> processes the files in the deployment/load directory in no particular
> order.
> I was thinking that since deployment order quite often is important
> (at least judging from my experience), would it make sense to have the
> directory watcher process files in an "oldest-first" manner (or at
> least make the processing order configurable to some extent)?
> This would prevent resolution problems for those cases where
> bundles/artifacts have been copied to the "pickup directory" in
> correct dependency order.
>
> Does it sound reasonable? If so, I can file a Jira issue.
>
> best regards, Peter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org