Re: [equinox-dev] Replacement for PackageAdmin.getBundles

[BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess this is a good opportunity to fix
your code :-)
--

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:      
 Neil Bartlett <njbartlett@xxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Equinox development
mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:      
 "Richard S. Hall"
<heavy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:      
 2011/02/22 12:49
Subject:    
   Re: [equinox-dev]
Replacement for PackageAdmin.getBundles
Sent by:    
   equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

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 Framework’s 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@xxxxxx.com_ <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
>
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev