You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it> on 2008/03/05 18:19:31 UTC
FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Hi All,
The issue FELIX-510 is related to the deploymentadmin bundle which is an
implementation of the Deployment Admin Specification defined in the OSGI
R4.1 Compendium document. At the moment the deploymentadmin bundle
contains, in its source folder, all the new API defined by the OSGi R4.1
which are not contained in any other Felix bundle.
I think that new API should be moved elsewhere and in particular the
natural cradle are the o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium and
o.a.f:org.osgi.core bundles.
Moving the new classes to compendium or core it will require releasing a
new version of those bundle. Regarding that I think that we should
change the version schema used for the core and compendium bundle. I
think that the best version schema for the version schema adopted by the
Felix Common subproject.
What do you think?
Ciao,
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by Siamak Haschemi <ha...@informatik.hu-berlin.de>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi Stefano,
+1 for moving the API, since one would like to avoid a dependency to the
felix-deploymentadmin implementation in her pom.
Kind regards,
Siamak Haschemi
Stefano Lenzi schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> The issue FELIX-510 is related to the deploymentadmin bundle which is an
> implementation of the Deployment Admin Specification defined in the OSGI
> R4.1 Compendium document. At the moment the deploymentadmin bundle
> contains, in its source folder, all the new API defined by the OSGi R4.1
> which are not contained in any other Felix bundle.
>
> I think that new API should be moved elsewhere and in particular the
> natural cradle are the o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium and
> o.a.f:org.osgi.core bundles.
>
> Moving the new classes to compendium or core it will require releasing a
> new version of those bundle. Regarding that I think that we should
> change the version schema used for the core and compendium bundle. I
> think that the best version schema for the version schema adopted by the
> Felix Common subproject.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkfO2f0ACgkQBLvtewtTEROd0gCfcJ7YiyvehAXH1PzDegmeXwnX
MQYAn1lHxkh1f6wn9lI7r0jNES3Me0sO
=FJCk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Yes, clearly they should be moved for the long run.
-> richard
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The issue FELIX-510 is related to the deploymentadmin bundle which is
> an implementation of the Deployment Admin Specification defined in the
> OSGI R4.1 Compendium document. At the moment the deploymentadmin
> bundle contains, in its source folder, all the new API defined by the
> OSGi R4.1 which are not contained in any other Felix bundle.
>
> I think that new API should be moved elsewhere and in particular the
> natural cradle are the o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium and
> o.a.f:org.osgi.core bundles.
>
> Moving the new classes to compendium or core it will require releasing
> a new version of those bundle. Regarding that I think that we should
> change the version schema used for the core and compendium bundle. I
> think that the best version schema for the version schema adopted by
> the Felix Common subproject.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>> Before updating the current compendium we have to release it as 1.0.1
>> to allow people to:
>> - Use it with JDK 1.3 (FELIX-486)
>> - Remove static import which require extra bundle on JDK 1.3 (FELIX-488)
>>
>> Also, releasing compendium as 1.0.1 is required for releasing felix-1.0.4
>>
>> Finally which version should we use for the compendium matching OSGi
>> R4.1?
>> I propose from now on to use the following schema:
>> <osgi-version>-<felix packaging version>
>> For example: the current 1.0.0 will become 4.0.0-000, the next
>> compendium release linked to R4 will be released as 4.0.0-001, and
>> finally the compdium linked to R4.1 will be released as 4.1.0-000
>>
>> Do you agree or should we use 1.2.0 as next stable release for
>> compendium? (Should I call a vote?)
>
> Isn't this the approach we decided on for commons? I can't remember, but
> it sounds reasonable to me.
Yes you are right! But I think that we have to call a Vote beacuse
o.a.f.:org.osgi.core,o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium, and
o.a.f.:org.osgi.foundation are not part of the Felix Common subproject
My two cent,
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
> -> richard
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Before updating the current compendium we have to release it as 1.0.1
> to allow people to:
> - Use it with JDK 1.3 (FELIX-486)
> - Remove static import which require extra bundle on JDK 1.3 (FELIX-488)
>
> Also, releasing compendium as 1.0.1 is required for releasing felix-1.0.4
>
> Finally which version should we use for the compendium matching OSGi
> R4.1?
> I propose from now on to use the following schema:
> <osgi-version>-<felix packaging version>
> For example: the current 1.0.0 will become 4.0.0-000, the next
> compendium release linked to R4 will be released as 4.0.0-001, and
> finally the compdium linked to R4.1 will be released as 4.1.0-000
>
> Do you agree or should we use 1.2.0 as next stable release for
> compendium? (Should I call a vote?)
Isn't this the approach we decided on for commons? I can't remember, but
it sounds reasonable to me.
-> richard
>
>
> NOTE: If you agree with the new release schema we should change the
> version schema even for o.a.f:org.osgi.core and o.a.f:org.osgi.foundation
>
>>
>> Christian van Spaandonk wrote:
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> makes sense to me, I created a JIRA issue for this [1]. I would
>>> assign it to myself but I am not yet confident I have a clear
>>> overview of the impact this may have for other modules...
>
> Thank you! I will assign it to me.
>
>>>
>>> friendly,
>>> Christian
>
> Glad to get new commers :)
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano Kismet Lenzi
>
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by Stuart McCulloch <st...@jayway.net>.
On 07/03/2008, Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it> wrote:
>
> See comments below..
>
>
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
> > Well, I was wondering about this too, but I think if there is an impact,
> > we can just make the impacted subprojects depend on the already released
> > version of compendium until they are made compatible with the newest
> > version. I think that should work.
> >
> > -> richard
>
>
> Before updating the current compendium we have to release it as 1.0.1 to
> allow people to:
> - Use it with JDK 1.3 (FELIX-486)
> - Remove static import which require extra bundle on JDK 1.3 (FELIX-488)
>
> Also, releasing compendium as 1.0.1 is required for releasing felix-1.0.4
>
> Finally which version should we use for the compendium matching OSGi R4.1?
> I propose from now on to use the following schema:
> <osgi-version>-<felix packaging version>
> For example: the current 1.0.0 will become 4.0.0-000, the next
> compendium release linked to R4 will be released as 4.0.0-001, and
> finally the compdium linked to R4.1 will be released as 4.1.0-000
+1 for using <osgi-spec-version>-<felix-maintenance-version>
imho it's much clearer to have the OSGi spec version up front
Do you agree or should we use 1.2.0 as next stable release for
> compendium? (Should I call a vote?)
why not, it's the sort of change we should get consensus for
NOTE: If you agree with the new release schema we should change the
> version schema even for o.a.f:org.osgi.core and o.a.f:org.osgi.foundation
>
>
> >
> > Christian van Spaandonk wrote:
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >>
> >> makes sense to me, I created a JIRA issue for this [1]. I would assign
> >> it to myself but I am not yet confident I have a clear overview of the
> >> impact this may have for other modules...
>
>
> Thank you! I will assign it to me.
>
> >>
> >> friendly,
> >> Christian
>
> Glad to get new commers :)
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano Kismet Lenzi
>
>
--
Cheers, Stuart
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it>.
See comments below..
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Well, I was wondering about this too, but I think if there is an impact,
> we can just make the impacted subprojects depend on the already released
> version of compendium until they are made compatible with the newest
> version. I think that should work.
>
> -> richard
Before updating the current compendium we have to release it as 1.0.1 to
allow people to:
- Use it with JDK 1.3 (FELIX-486)
- Remove static import which require extra bundle on JDK 1.3 (FELIX-488)
Also, releasing compendium as 1.0.1 is required for releasing felix-1.0.4
Finally which version should we use for the compendium matching OSGi R4.1?
I propose from now on to use the following schema:
<osgi-version>-<felix packaging version>
For example: the current 1.0.0 will become 4.0.0-000, the next
compendium release linked to R4 will be released as 4.0.0-001, and
finally the compdium linked to R4.1 will be released as 4.1.0-000
Do you agree or should we use 1.2.0 as next stable release for
compendium? (Should I call a vote?)
NOTE: If you agree with the new release schema we should change the
version schema even for o.a.f:org.osgi.core and o.a.f:org.osgi.foundation
>
> Christian van Spaandonk wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> makes sense to me, I created a JIRA issue for this [1]. I would assign
>> it to myself but I am not yet confident I have a clear overview of the
>> impact this may have for other modules...
Thank you! I will assign it to me.
>>
>> friendly,
>> Christian
Glad to get new commers :)
Ciao,
Stefano Kismet Lenzi
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Well, I was wondering about this too, but I think if there is an impact,
we can just make the impacted subprojects depend on the already released
version of compendium until they are made compatible with the newest
version. I think that should work.
-> richard
Christian van Spaandonk wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
> makes sense to me, I created a JIRA issue for this [1]. I would assign
> it to myself but I am not yet confident I have a clear overview of the
> impact this may have for other modules...
>
> friendly,
> Christian
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-514
>
>
> Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The issue FELIX-510 is related to the deploymentadmin bundle which is
>> an implementation of the Deployment Admin Specification defined in
>> the OSGI R4.1 Compendium document. At the moment the deploymentadmin
>> bundle contains, in its source folder, all the new API defined by the
>> OSGi R4.1 which are not contained in any other Felix bundle.
>>
>> I think that new API should be moved elsewhere and in particular the
>> natural cradle are the o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium and
>> o.a.f:org.osgi.core bundles.
>>
>> Moving the new classes to compendium or core it will require
>> releasing a new version of those bundle. Regarding that I think that
>> we should change the version schema used for the core and compendium
>> bundle. I think that the best version schema for the version schema
>> adopted by the Felix Common subproject.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
Re: FELIX-510 exploited a side issue OSGi R4.1 packages
Posted by Christian van Spaandonk <ch...@luminis.nl>.
Hi Stefano,
makes sense to me, I created a JIRA issue for this [1]. I would assign
it to myself but I am not yet confident I have a clear overview of the
impact this may have for other modules...
friendly,
Christian
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-514
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The issue FELIX-510 is related to the deploymentadmin bundle which is
> an implementation of the Deployment Admin Specification defined in the
> OSGI R4.1 Compendium document. At the moment the deploymentadmin
> bundle contains, in its source folder, all the new API defined by the
> OSGi R4.1 which are not contained in any other Felix bundle.
>
> I think that new API should be moved elsewhere and in particular the
> natural cradle are the o.a.f.:org.osgi.compendium and
> o.a.f:org.osgi.core bundles.
>
> Moving the new classes to compendium or core it will require releasing
> a new version of those bundle. Regarding that I think that we should
> change the version schema used for the core and compendium bundle. I
> think that the best version schema for the version schema adopted by
> the Felix Common subproject.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Ciao,
> Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi