I'm in favour of using ids/names to configure a list of required plugins. That seems more robust.
Imagine a client application deploying its own RepositoryInitializer without adjusting the required number of services. That could easily lead to one of the "product" RepositoryInitializers to be skipped. Even worse, depending on the startup order (and without proper service.ranking) the active RepositoryInitializers could vary between restarts. Regards Julian On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Julian Sedding wrote >> Wouldn't it make sense in these "we have 0..N *mandatory* plugins, how >> to wait on them problem" situations to explicitly configure all >> required dependencies on the consuming service, e.g. by PID. This >> would make it robust and allow for correct ordering. Of course the >> additional configuration constitutes an overhead, but I think if the >> dependencies are mandatory, this information needs to live somewhere. >> > Right, there are two options: > - you configure the number of services you expect, usually you know how > many you deploy > - you reference the required services by some other means. PID does not > work as not every service has a PID. So we would need to come up with > another property identifying the service, like "name", "id" etc. > > I see other people very often use the first approach being totally happy > with it. But whatever we pick, I'm fine with it as long as we pick > something. The current way simply does not work > > Carsten > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected] >
