[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] Replacement for PackageAdmin.getBundles

Hi Richard and BJ,

I know the PackageAdmin is optional. Pragmatically though it's been
present in every framework for so long that it's availability is
assumed. I'm guilty myself of simply getting it as a service without
null-checking the result, and I'm sure a lot of production code out
there does the same.

Cheers
Neil

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Richard S. Hall <heavy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/22/11 12:19, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>> On 2/22/11 12:12, Thomas Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> No, package admin may not be available on all future framework
>>> implementations of R4.3. I have no plans to remove it from equinox because I
>>> know it is used by many clients and I don't want to break them. I would hope
>>> that most framework implementations would have the same concern and will
>>> keep an implementation of PackageAdmin around for a long time.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the seriousness of this "breaking change"
>>> though. There is an alternative way of doing this as BJ suggests. Also,
>>> PackageAdmin may have been a mandatory core service in OSGi R4.2
>>> specification, but it has not always been so. Previous releases of the core
>>> specifications made the PackageAdmin service optional. Although I don't
>>> think there is any reasonable core framework implementation available that
>>> does not provide PackageAdmin at the moment.
>>
>> I guess I didn't even remember making them mandatory...the R4.2 spec still
>> has sentences like this:
>>
>> "For example, a Framework vendor could supply the
>> optional services like Permission Admin service and Start Level service
>> with
>> Framework extension bundles."
>
> Sorry, I read "Permission Admin" as "Package Admin", but I'm still trying to
> see in the spec where it says Package Admin is mandatory. See this in 7.1.3:
>
> "The Frameworkâs system bundle should provide a Package Admin service
> for the Management Agent."
>
> -> richard
>
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> -----equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
>>>
>>> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> From: Neil Bartlett <njbartlett@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Date: 02/22/2011 10:46AM
>>> Cc: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Replacement for PackageAdmin.getBundles
>>>
>>> BJ, could you confirm that the old API will still be available in
>>> all frameworks... otherwise this would be a serious breaking
>>> change for existing clients.
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry
>>>
>>> On 22 Feb 2011, at 16:09, BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> <mailto:hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no replacement for that method. You can just grovel over
>>>> the bundles to find this information. Seems like a job for a
>>>> utility class...
>>>>
>>>> That method was not a good fit for packageadmin anyway since it
>>>> nothing to do with the wiring state of the bundles.
>>>> -- *BJ Hargrave*
>>>> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
>>>> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the _OSGi Alliance_ <http://www.osgi.org/>_
>>>> __hargrave@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> office: +1 386 848 1781
>>>> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Gunnar Wagenknecht <gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> <mailto:gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> To: equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: 2011/02/22 07:08
>>>> Subject: [equinox-dev] Replacement for PackageAdmin.getBundles
>>>> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> <mailto:equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> What's the recommended replacement for
>>>> org.osgi.service.packageadmin.PackageAdmin.getBundles(String,
>>>> String)? I
>>>> was looking for a similar method in the new org.osgi.framework.wiring
>>>> package. But it appears that there is none. I haven't checked the
>>>> changes for M6, though.
>>>>
>>>> -Gunnar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Gunnar Wagenknecht
>>>> gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gunnar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> http://wagenknecht.org/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> equinox-dev mailing list
>>>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> equinox-dev mailing list
>>>> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>