Ok, since I've exhausted the patience of one of the responders, I'll end the thread here :)
I think it benefits any community when such issues are openly debated, and while I don't necessarily interpet the spec the way others have stated, at least opinions on the 'intent' of the spec were made part of the discourse. Like someone posted previously, no spec is perfect. However, we can learn from this whenever a requirement is put into writing to ensure that there is no ambiguity. Eric On Thursday 16 August 2007 05:54:09 pm Richard S. Hall wrote: > While I understand Eric's point that it might not be 100% clear, it was > always my understanding that the spec meant "no re-use of IDs > forever"...there has been a comment in the code dating back to the > Oscar days saying that this portion of the impl was non-compliant, it > was just never an issue before Marcel started complaining about it. ;-) > > It is not too ugly to add this functionality, I just modified the > bundle cache so that the system bundle has its own private data area, > so now it just writes it to there. Up until this point, the framework > never saved any data for itself...now it actually has the added benefit > that system bundle activators passed into the Felix constructor can now > also persist stuff to the system bundle private data area, so it is not > all bad. :-D > > -> richard > > On Aug 16, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Eric Swindell wrote: > > I figured there was a use case somewhere :) However, I'm still not > > convinced > > that it's in the spec. I'm not sure it is wise to rely on the > > consistency of > > the id in this case. Yes, while the bundles are running within a > > Framework > > instance and yes on restarts, but if a Bundle is uninstalled and the > > Framework instance restarted, I'm not seeing the need nor the spec > > requirement. I wouldn't even be concerned if the Bundle ids changed > > after a > > restart. > > > > Eric > > > > On Thursday 16 August 2007 05:23:03 pm Marcel Offermans wrote: > >> On Aug 17, 2007, at 0:05 , BJ Hargrave wrote: > >>> See section 6.1.4.12 in the spec: > >>> "Its value is not reused for another bundle, even after a bundle is > >>> uninstalled." > >> > >> Following up on Eric's question. Like BJ says, it's in the spec, and > >> I actually have a use case for it too. We're tracking life cycle > >> changes in the framework and in that context we're using the bundle > >> identifier as an identifier. That means we actually rely on the fact > >> that this identifier will only refer to one bundle (and describes its > >> whole life cycle). > >> > >> Greetings, Marcel
