I believe Alasdair's referring to Jarek's changes on June 24 under
Jira ARIES-341 - " Also updated the code to ensure the system and
local repositories are included in repository set used in resolver.
Changes committed in revision 957403."

Alasdair raised concerns in this post:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-aries-dev/201006.mbox/%[email protected]%3e
- the thread is visible here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-aries-dev/201006.mbox/thread?2
but doesn't seem to have resulted in any code changes.

>From what I can tell, we were all happy to add a switch to turn
resolving against the local repository on or off, but I'm not sure we
agreed on its default position.

Regards,
Mark

On 17 November 2010 12:19, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OBR used to hide local bundles from the resolve results, is this still
> the case? If so I would prefer the default be to not resolve against
> the local framework.
>
> Alasdair
>
> On 17 November 2010 11:18, Emily Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes, Mark. I plan to commit my own patch on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-460 for documenting the new
>> application.mf and deployment.mf. In addition, I will produce a full picture
>> on application module to detail what the bundles you need to be able to use
>> application module and which bundles you should provide your own etc.
>> Thanks
>> Emily
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Mark Nuttall <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Emily,
>>> That sounds reasonable to me. Will you add this to your
>>> documentation-to-do list?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 17 November 2010 10:31, Emily Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > Based on Jarek's comments, we can make the provisioning against local
>>> > runtime configurable via a system variable,
>>> > "provision.exclude.local.repository". The default behaviour is that we
>>> > provision EBA applications against the local runtimes (apache aries
>>> default
>>> > behaviour) unless the system variable is set to true. In this way, any
>>> > application servers can set this system variable to 'true' in their
>>> > environment if they want to change the default behaviour. We won't need
>>> to
>>> > change apache aries default behaviour.
>>> >
>>> > What do people think?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Emily
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Emily,
>>> >>
>>> >> Maybe I misunderstood what you meant in your original email but here's
>>> >> what I'm thinking of. If I install some eba that has logging api
>>> >> dependencies and my rumtime provides logging api I want the eba to use
>>> >> the logging api provided by the runtime.
>>> >>
>>> >> Jarek
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Emily Jiang <[email protected]
>>> >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi Jarek,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Alasdair was correct that this was not related to isolation and it was
>>> >> our
>>> >> > policy on provisioning.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Are you happy with the suggestion of choosing not to provision against
>>> >> local
>>> >> > platform repositories (runtime jars)?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks
>>> >> > Emily
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Alasdair Nottingham <[email protected]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hi, not sure what this has to do with isolation.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Alasdair
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 15 Nov 2010, at 16:13, Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > I think we should keep the current behavior and make it
>>> configurable.
>>> >> >> > Not all environments support isolation.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Jarek
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Emily Jiang <
>>> >> [email protected]>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> A month ago, I raised a question about disabling resolving an
>>> >> >> application
>>> >> >> >> against local platform repository (runtime bundles). No one seems
>>> to
>>> >> >> object
>>> >> >> >> the idea. I will go ahead to make the changes tomorrow not to
>>> >> provision
>>> >> >> >> against the runtime bundles when provisioning an EBA application.
>>> If
>>> >> you
>>> >> >> >> have any different opinion, please shout now.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Thanks
>>> >> >> >> Emily
>>> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> >> >> >> From: Emily Jiang <[email protected]>
>>> >> >> >> Date: 15 October 2010 14:23
>>> >> >> >> Subject: [Discussion] resolving against local platform repository
>>> >> >> >> To: [email protected]
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> At the moment, our aries resolver resolves eba files against local
>>> >> >> >> platform repositories, which means that customer bundles will be
>>> able
>>> >> to
>>> >> >> >> import packages exported by our runtime bundles, such as
>>> >> >> >> org.apache.aries.application.api_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT.
>>> Ideally,
>>> >> we
>>> >> >> >> should not allow customer bundles depend on our runtime bundles,
>>> >> which
>>> >> >> >> should be private to our own runtime framework. I think not many (
>>> or
>>> >> >> even
>>> >> >> >> none:o) App Server would like to expose their internal to customer
>>> >> >> >> bundles. Any objections for excluding the local runtime bundles
>>> when
>>> >> we
>>> >> >> >> perform provisioning?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> If we do decide to keep the current behaviour, we should give an
>>> >> option
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> >> the app servers to alter this behaviour (e.g. make their runtime
>>> >> bundles
>>> >> >> >> invisible to provisioner). Thoughts?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Below are the subset of the runtime bundles for setting up itests:
>>> >> >> >> {1=org.ops4j.pax.exam_1.2.0 [1],
>>> >> >> >>  2=org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender_1.2.0 [2],
>>> >> >> >>  3=org.ops4j.pax.exam.junit.extender.impl_1.2.0 [3],
>>> >> >> >>  4=wrap_mvn_org.ops4j.pax.exam_pax-exam-junit_1.2.0_0.0.0 [4],
>>> >> >> >>  5=org.ops4j.pax.logging.pax-logging-api_1.4.0 [5],
>>> >> >> >>  6=org.ops4j.pax.logging.pax-logging-service_1.4.0 [6],
>>> >> >> >>  7=org.apache.felix.configadmin_1.2.4 [7],
>>> >> >> >>  8=org.ops4j.pax.url.mvn_1.1.2 [8],
>>> >> >> >>  9=org.apache.aries.application.api_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT [9],
>>> >> >> >>  10=org.apache.aries.application.utils_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> [10],
>>> >> >> >>
>>>  11=org.apache.aries.application.management_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [11],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> 12=org.apache.aries.application.default.local.platform_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [12],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> 13=org.apache.aries.application.noop.platform.repo_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [13],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> 14=org.apache.aries.application.noop.postresolve.process_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [14],
>>> >> >> >>  15=org.apache.aries.application.runtime_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> [15],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >>  16=org.apache.aries.application.resolver.obr_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [16],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> 17=org.apache.aries.application.deployment.management_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [17],
>>> >> >> >>
>>>  18=org.apache.aries.application.modeller_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> [18],
>>> >> >> >>  19=org.apache.felix.bundlerepository_1.6.4 [19],
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> 20=org.apache.aries.application.runtime.itest.interfaces_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT
>>> >> >> >> [20],
>>> >> >> >>  21=org.apache.aries.util_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT [21],
>>> >> >> >>  22=org.apache.aries.blueprint_0.3.0.incubating-SNAPSHOT [22],
>>> >> >> >>  23=osgi.cmpn_4.2.0.200908310645 [23], ....}
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Many thanks and kindest regards,
>>> >> >> >> Emily
>>> >> >> >> ===========================
>>> >> >> >> Emily Jiang
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> --
>>> >> >> >> Thanks
>>> >> >> >> Emily
>>> >> >> >> =================
>>> >> >> >> Emily Jiang
>>> >> >> >> [email protected]
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Thanks
>>> >> > Emily
>>> >> > =================
>>> >> > Emily Jiang
>>> >> > [email protected]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Emily
>>> > =================
>>> > Emily Jiang
>>> > [email protected]
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Emily
>> =================
>> Emily Jiang
>> [email protected]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alasdair Nottingham
> [email protected]
>

Reply via email to