You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by Tom Remoleur <to...@ulp.u-strasbg.fr> on 2007/08/20 15:04:31 UTC
Configuration Admin
Hi Cziegeler
I've got problems with configuration admin since you modify some files.
I saw you have removed unused "this." in the code but the "this." at line
338 of ConfigurationImpl class was necessary (method configure).
could somebody fix it ?
Regards
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Configuration Admin
Posted by Tom Remoleur <to...@ulp.u-strasbg.fr>.
No problems Carsten.
Thanks Felix, works great with your last commit
Tom
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:15:51 +0200, Carsten Ziegeler
<cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Felix Meschberger schrieb:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I am currently trying to finalize the fix for the synchronization issue.
>> At the same time, I am reverting most of these this. additions and false
>> removals.
>>
>> Currently, I have a test case, which seems to work in a sense, that the
>> NPE reported by Karl is reproducible without the latest fix but does not
>> occurr with the latest fix.
>>
>> I will commit all the fixes ASAP, which then should also include the fix
>> for what you are currently seeing.
>>
> Thanks Felix!
>
> Again, sorry for all the problems I caused!
>
> Carsten
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Configuration Admin
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Felix Meschberger schrieb:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I am currently trying to finalize the fix for the synchronization issue.
> At the same time, I am reverting most of these this. additions and false
> removals.
>
> Currently, I have a test case, which seems to work in a sense, that the
> NPE reported by Karl is reproducible without the latest fix but does not
> occurr with the latest fix.
>
> I will commit all the fixes ASAP, which then should also include the fix
> for what you are currently seeing.
>
Thanks Felix!
Again, sorry for all the problems I caused!
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: Configuration Admin
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi Tom,
I am currently trying to finalize the fix for the synchronization issue.
At the same time, I am reverting most of these this. additions and false
removals.
Currently, I have a test case, which seems to work in a sense, that the
NPE reported by Karl is reproducible without the latest fix but does not
occurr with the latest fix.
I will commit all the fixes ASAP, which then should also include the fix
for what you are currently seeing.
Regards
Felix
Am Montag, den 20.08.2007, 15:04 +0200 schrieb Tom Remoleur:
> Hi Cziegeler
>
> I've got problems with configuration admin since you modify some files.
> I saw you have removed unused "this." in the code but the "this." at line
> 338 of ConfigurationImpl class was necessary (method configure).
> could somebody fix it ?
>
> Regards
> Tom
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: R3 bundle backward compatibility
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
I am fairly certain that the spec clearly stated in previous releases
that bundles only implicitly get "java.*" imported and must import
everything else.
Thus, if you have an R3 bundle that does this, then it will install
just fine on Felix. Any other bundle is essentially in error. Oscar was
non-compliant in this regard.
If you really want this, just change boot delegation to "*"...I don't
advise it. Otherwise, we are only talking about modifying the manifest
and we have tools that will do this automatically for you.
The only other option is to debate the merits of an "R3 boot
delegation" property if you feel normal boot delegation is too broad.
However, I would argue it doesn't make sense to bloat the framework for
erroneous bundles.
-> richard
On Aug 20, 2007, at 10:34 AM, GERODOLLE Anne RD-MAPS-GRE wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> The OSGi R4 specifications indicates very clearly that "Release 3
> bundles must be treated according to the R3 specification". (OSGi
> Service Platform Core Specification, section 3.11 "Bundle Validity") .
>
> Thus, it seems to me that felix should support installing legacy R3
> bundle without any specific configurations. Felix 1.0.0 does not.
>
> This problem was already raised by Andre Bottaro some months ago, and I
> am aware of the answers made on felix user list, but not completely
> satisfied with the answers. I am ready to believe that "Some framework
> implementations allowed automatic access to classes on the class path
> and some didn't", but I am convinced that basic packages like
> "org.osgi.framework" and "javax.swing" were always available.
>
> Thanks in advance for considering ensuring backward compatibility in
> felix,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
R3 bundle backward compatibility
Posted by GERODOLLE Anne RD-MAPS-GRE <an...@orange-ftgroup.com>.
Hi everybody,
The OSGi R4 specifications indicates very clearly that "Release 3
bundles must be treated according to the R3 specification". (OSGi
Service Platform Core Specification, section 3.11 "Bundle Validity") .
Thus, it seems to me that felix should support installing legacy R3
bundle without any specific configurations. Felix 1.0.0 does not.
This problem was already raised by Andre Bottaro some months ago, and I
am aware of the answers made on felix user list, but not completely
satisfied with the answers. I am ready to believe that "Some framework
implementations allowed automatic access to classes on the class path
and some didn't", but I am convinced that basic packages like
"org.osgi.framework" and "javax.swing" were always available.
Thanks in advance for considering ensuring backward compatibility in
felix,
Anne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org