You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Ikuo Yamasaki <ya...@lab.ntt.co.jp> on 2010/12/14 08:39:04 UTC
Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Hi all
The page of http://felix.apache.org/site/index.html says
"Framework 3.0 plus Framework Security Provider 1.4
have been certified R4.2 compliant and are now listed at the OSGi
Alliance web site. (October 26, 2010)"
However, the following page is not updated.
http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-framework-osgi-tck-results.html
I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is supported by
Felix framework.
In addition, could you tell me which compendium specs are supported by
felix bundles ?
Best regards,
=======
Ikuo YAMASAKI
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 1/6/11 10:09, Peakall,Dale wrote:
> The Log Service is not 4.2 compliant. It doesn't send log events to
> event admin service (if available) etc. I can update it to do this, but
> I've never seen anyone complain about the missing functionality (added
> in 4.1 IIRC). Everyone I know uses PAX-Log for production systems as
> the in-memory solution is not appropriate.
A patch would be great. :-)
-> richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ikuo Yamasaki [mailto:yamasaki.ikuo@lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: 15 December 2010 03:45
> To: dev@felix.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
>
> Felix, and David,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I understand about the framework stuff.
>
> If anyone can provide information or a web page provides those info, it
> would be very helpful, especially for newcomers to adopt Felix impl.
>
> Best regards,
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:42:23 +0100
> Felix Meschberger<fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Felix> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
> Felix> -- Http Service (might be reasonably complete)
> Felix> -- Deployment Admin
> Felix> -- Log Service
> Felix> -- Event Admin (IIRC passes the CT)
> Felix> -- UPNP
> Felix> -- Command Shell
> Felix> -- Wire Admin
> Felix> -- Preferences Services
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:05:53 +0000
> David Bosschaert<da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David> On 14 December 2010 13:42, Felix Meschberger<fm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> David> > Hi Ikuo,
> David> >
> David> > Am Dienstag, den 14.12.2010, 16:39 +0900 schrieb Ikuo Yamasaki:
> David> >
> David> >> I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is
> supported by
> David> >> Felix framework.
> David> >
> David> > Yes, Service Hooks are supported. At least, the code is there
> and I
> David> > would assume that the 4.2 CT would test these.
> David>
> David> Yes, I implemented these a good while back. At the time all the
> CT
> David> tests were passing when I ran them.
> David>
> David> Cheers,
> David>
> David> David
> David>
> David>
>
> =======
> Ikuo YAMASAKI
>
>
>
>
RE: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by "Peakall,Dale" <Da...@oclc.org>.
The Log Service is not 4.2 compliant. It doesn't send log events to
event admin service (if available) etc. I can update it to do this, but
I've never seen anyone complain about the missing functionality (added
in 4.1 IIRC). Everyone I know uses PAX-Log for production systems as
the in-memory solution is not appropriate.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ikuo Yamasaki [mailto:yamasaki.ikuo@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: 15 December 2010 03:45
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Felix, and David,
Thank you for your reply.
I understand about the framework stuff.
If anyone can provide information or a web page provides those info, it
would be very helpful, especially for newcomers to adopt Felix impl.
Best regards,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:42:23 +0100
Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Felix> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
Felix> -- Http Service (might be reasonably complete)
Felix> -- Deployment Admin
Felix> -- Log Service
Felix> -- Event Admin (IIRC passes the CT)
Felix> -- UPNP
Felix> -- Command Shell
Felix> -- Wire Admin
Felix> -- Preferences Services
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:05:53 +0000
David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
David> On 14 December 2010 13:42, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
David> > Hi Ikuo,
David> >
David> > Am Dienstag, den 14.12.2010, 16:39 +0900 schrieb Ikuo Yamasaki:
David> >
David> >> I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is
supported by
David> >> Felix framework.
David> >
David> > Yes, Service Hooks are supported. At least, the code is there
and I
David> > would assume that the 4.2 CT would test these.
David>
David> Yes, I implemented these a good while back. At the time all the
CT
David> tests were passing when I ran them.
David>
David> Cheers,
David>
David> David
David>
David>
=======
Ikuo YAMASAKI
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <le...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 04:45, Ikuo Yamasaki
<ya...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Felix, and David,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I understand about the framework stuff.
>
> If anyone can provide information or a web page provides those info, it
> would be very helpful, especially for newcomers to adopt Felix impl.
>
> Best regards,
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:42:23 +0100
> Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Felix> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
> Felix> -- Http Service (might be reasonably complete)
> Felix> -- Deployment Admin
> Felix> -- Log Service
> Felix> -- Event Admin (IIRC passes the CT)
> Felix> -- UPNP
The current OSGi UPnP Base Driver implementation covers almost all the
specification but it doesn't only the following items:
- support of icon file
- configuration of the multicast address for discovery by means of
Config Admin service
> Felix> -- Command Shell
> Felix> -- Wire Admin
> Felix> -- Preferences Services
>
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Ikuo Yamasaki <ya...@lab.ntt.co.jp>.
Felix, and David,
Thank you for your reply.
I understand about the framework stuff.
If anyone can provide information or a web page provides those info, it
would be very helpful, especially for newcomers to adopt Felix impl.
Best regards,
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:42:23 +0100
Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Felix> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
Felix> -- Http Service (might be reasonably complete)
Felix> -- Deployment Admin
Felix> -- Log Service
Felix> -- Event Admin (IIRC passes the CT)
Felix> -- UPNP
Felix> -- Command Shell
Felix> -- Wire Admin
Felix> -- Preferences Services
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:05:53 +0000
David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
David> On 14 December 2010 13:42, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
David> > Hi Ikuo,
David> >
David> > Am Dienstag, den 14.12.2010, 16:39 +0900 schrieb Ikuo Yamasaki:
David> >
David> >> I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is supported by
David> >> Felix framework.
David> >
David> > Yes, Service Hooks are supported. At least, the code is there and I
David> > would assume that the 4.2 CT would test these.
David>
David> Yes, I implemented these a good while back. At the time all the CT
David> tests were passing when I ran them.
David>
David> Cheers,
David>
David> David
David>
David>
=======
Ikuo YAMASAKI
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by David Bosschaert <da...@gmail.com>.
On 14 December 2010 13:42, Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ikuo,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 14.12.2010, 16:39 +0900 schrieb Ikuo Yamasaki:
>
>> I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is supported by
>> Felix framework.
>
> Yes, Service Hooks are supported. At least, the code is there and I
> would assume that the 4.2 CT would test these.
Yes, I implemented these a good while back. At the time all the CT
tests were passing when I ran them.
Cheers,
David
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Ikuo Yamasaki <ya...@lab.ntt.co.jp>.
Hi, Felix
Useful info ！ Thank you.
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:24:57 +0100
Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Felix> Hi,
Felix>
Felix> Ok, I started a page listing the Core and Compendium specifications and
Felix> our implementations as far as I found them ....
Felix>
Felix> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/OSGi+Specification
Felix> +Implementations
Felix>
Felix> Regards
Felix> Felix
Felix>
Felix> Am Mittwoch, den 15.12.2010, 08:54 -0500 schrieb Richard S. Hall:
Felix> > On 12/14/10 13:37, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Felix> > > On 14 Dec 2010, at 14:42 , Felix Meschberger wrote:
Felix> > >
Felix> > >> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
Felix> > >> -- Deployment Admin
Felix> > > Not entirely up to date. Mainly missing an option to uninstall deployment packages, and I think there might be some localization and security support missing.
Felix> > >
Felix> > > -- Auto Configuration
Felix> > >
Felix> > > Not released yet either. At least the basic use cases are working.
Felix> > >
Felix> > > ...I was wondering, don't we have a list of these services and their state on the wiki?
Felix> >
Felix> > I don't think so.
Felix> >
Felix> > -> richard
Felix> >
Felix> > > Greetings, Marcel
Felix> > >
Felix>
Felix>
=======
Ikuo YAMASAKI
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Ok, I started a page listing the Core and Compendium specifications and
our implementations as far as I found them ....
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/OSGi+Specification
+Implementations
Regards
Felix
Am Mittwoch, den 15.12.2010, 08:54 -0500 schrieb Richard S. Hall:
> On 12/14/10 13:37, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> > On 14 Dec 2010, at 14:42 , Felix Meschberger wrote:
> >
> >> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
> >> -- Deployment Admin
> > Not entirely up to date. Mainly missing an option to uninstall deployment packages, and I think there might be some localization and security support missing.
> >
> > -- Auto Configuration
> >
> > Not released yet either. At least the basic use cases are working.
> >
> > ...I was wondering, don't we have a list of these services and their state on the wiki?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> -> richard
>
> > Greetings, Marcel
> >
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 12/14/10 13:37, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2010, at 14:42 , Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
>> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
>> -- Deployment Admin
> Not entirely up to date. Mainly missing an option to uninstall deployment packages, and I think there might be some localization and security support missing.
>
> -- Auto Configuration
>
> Not released yet either. At least the basic use cases are working.
>
> ...I was wondering, don't we have a list of these services and their state on the wiki?
I don't think so.
-> richard
> Greetings, Marcel
>
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On 14 Dec 2010, at 14:42 , Felix Meschberger wrote:
> These I don't know the exact compliance state:
> -- Deployment Admin
Not entirely up to date. Mainly missing an option to uninstall deployment packages, and I think there might be some localization and security support missing.
-- Auto Configuration
Not released yet either. At least the basic use cases are working.
...I was wondering, don't we have a list of these services and their state on the wiki?
Greetings, Marcel
Re: Q on R4.2 Spec Compliance
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ikuo,
Am Dienstag, den 14.12.2010, 16:39 +0900 schrieb Ikuo Yamasaki:
> Hi all
>
> The page of http://felix.apache.org/site/index.html says
> "Framework 3.0 plus Framework Security Provider 1.4
> have been certified R4.2 compliant and are now listed at the OSGi
> Alliance web site. (October 26, 2010)"
>
> However, the following page is not updated.
>
> http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-framework-osgi-tck-results.html
>
> I wonder whether Service Hools Specs in Core Spec R4.2 is supported by
> Felix framework.
Yes, Service Hooks are supported. At least, the code is there and I
would assume that the 4.2 CT would test these.
>
> In addition, could you tell me which compendium specs are supported by
> felix bundles ?
These I know:
-- Configuration Admin (this is the RI, you know ;-) )
-- Declarative Services (passes the CT with some tweaks)
-- Metatype Service (does not completely pass the CT due to possible
CT bugs)
These I don't know the exact compliance state:
-- Http Service (might be reasonably complete)
-- Deployment Admin
-- Log Service
-- Event Admin (IIRC passes the CT)
-- UPNP
-- Command Shell
-- Wire Admin
-- Preferences Services
As for R4.3 drafts I am working Configuration Admin update, Coordinator
Service and Simple Configuration.
and maybe I missed one or the other....
Hope this helps
Regards
Felix
>
> Best regards,
>
> =======
> Ikuo YAMASAKI
>
>