Re: [equinox-dev] DS and bundle stop/start

[BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes. No bundle should expect another bundle
to register some service during it activation. A bundle should depend upon
services using DS or ServiceTracker (or even ServiceListener).
--

BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx

office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788

From:	Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
To:	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2009/10/27 09:54
Subject:	Re: [equinox-dev] DS and bundle stop/start
Sent by:	equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hmmm, I thought the original design of lazy activation
and DS components was to synchronously make service components available
in the service registry as long as they are immediately resolvable. The
reason for this was to ensure these services were synchronously available
before we entered the Eclipse application entry point.

This points out a deficiency in the way most of Eclipse handles dynamic
registration of services. If every eclipse bundle was written from day
one to handle dynamic registration and unregistration of services then
it would not matter that the service registration happened asynchronously.

Tom

BJ
Hargrave---10/26/2009 03:27:34 PM---Why doesn't DS just asynchronously
process bundles which are lazy activated (not lazy started which is an
incorrect term)? Then

From:	BJ Hargrave/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
To:	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	10/26/2009 03:27 PM
Subject:	Re: [equinox-dev] DS and bundle stop/start

---

Why doesn't DS just asynchronously process bundles which are lazy activated
(not lazy started which is an incorrect term)? Then you have the same behavior
(async processing) regardless of whether the bundle is lazily or eagerly
activated. 
--

BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx

office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788

From:	John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:	2009/10/26 14:32
Subject:	[equinox-dev] DS and bundle stop/start
Sent by:	equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

I came across an interesting problem today involving DS and expicitly starting/stopping
bundles. After chatting with Tom he suggested I raise it here for general
awareness and to discuss whether the behaviour makes sense.

In various places in p2 today we explicitly start bundles for various reasons.
We typically use Bundle.start(Bundle.START_TRANSIENT) for this purpose.
We are starting to use DS in p2 today, and we have a few places where a
bundle acquires a service that it registered via DS in its own BundleActivator.start
method. It turns out that DS only processes/starts service components synchronously
for bundles that are lazy started. If you start a bundle explicitly the
DS processing occurs asynchronously, and as a result the services provided
via DS are not available at the time the bundle starts. The result is subtlely
different bundle behaviour (or outright failures), if a bundle is started
explicitly via Bundle#start versus implicitly via lazy activation:

1) Lazy start case: 
a) bundle's service component is processed and services provided by the
component are registered by DS 
b) bundle activator starts, and can use services registered in 1a)

2) Activation via Bundle.start(Bundle.START_TRANSIENT):
a) bundle's activator starts, and services are not yet available
b) bundle's service component is processed and services provided by the
component are registered by DS 

It turns out there is a coding pattern that can be used to make the explicit
start case match the lazy start case: 

final Bundle bundle = ...;//get
some bundle 
bundle.start(Bundle.START_ACTIVATION_POLICY);
bundle.start(Bundle.START_TRANSIENT);

The call to start(Bundle.START_ACTIVATION_POLICY) causes DS to process
the bundle and register its component services, but does not start the
bundle. The second call to start with Bundle.START_TRANSIENT actually starts
the bundle. 

The moral of the story seems to be that we need to use this "double
start" coding pattern anywhere we are starting bundles, because those
bundles might be using DS and relying on the activation order. Or, perhaps
someone has a suggestion for changes that can be made to the framework
or DS so that these cases behave consistently... 

John_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev

_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev