I consider Guava to be part of the JDK so I disagree. We haven’t had many issues with Guava compatibility. In fact, I can’t think of one Jira reported on it. So, my vote would be to leave things as they are.
-JZ On April 1, 2015 at 3:09:49 AM, Simon Kitching (simon.kitch...@smartstream-stp.com) wrote: Thanks Jordan. The root cause of the problem isn't really anything osgi-specific; it's the fact that curator uses another library (guava) as part of its _public_ API. Imagine you wanted to change from using guava to some other collections library - it wouldn't be possible without breaking the public API of curator. The question is whether guava really should be part of the curator API, or should be just an implementation detail. I would suggest that the use of guava is really an implementation detail that should be private/hidden - unlike use of jaxws for example, which really is an externally-defined abstract API and is reasonable to include as part of the public API of curator. This difference between used-in-the-impl and used-in-the-api doesn't matter so much in a java application with one big classloader that has every single jarfile in it; if you need the guava library in the classpath for internal use by curator, then it will automatically also be visible to all other classes and so it is impossible to have a different version of the library also present. Using OSGi (which creates multiple classloaders) can allow multiple versions of the same lib - but only when the lib is only used-in-the-impl (ie is for "internal" usage by a jarfile). Re keeping a compatible API: possibly all classes in package "org.apache.curator.framework.listen" could be copied into a new package, and then the ListenerContainer class updated to not expose guava. All classes in "org.apache.curator.framework.listen" could then be deprecated. As long as OSGi code avoids using any code from the old package, there would be no binding to the guava library used by curator. I don't know if that would be better than simply changing the API for a couple of methods or not. I will create a JIRA issue to update the maven-build-plugin version; that's trivial and is not a binary incompatibility. Unless somebody objects within the next few days, I will also create a JIRA issue regarding the APIs that expose guava. I might have time to work on this myself next month (may). By the way, if you're interested in how OSGi classloading works, this may be helpful: http://moi.vonos.net/java/osgi-classloaders/ Thanks & Regards, Simon (aka skitching at apache.org) ________________________________ From: Jordan Zimmerman [jor...@jordanzimmerman.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 17:46 To: dev@curator.apache.org; Simon Kitching Subject: Re: Proposal : remove references to guava library from public APIs I don’t have an objection in general. The biggest problem for me is that I know very little about OSGI. All of the OSGI work has been contributed so it’s hard to make sure that we keep it working. That said, changing existing APIs is very disruptive to the Curator community. I’d like to see someone (Simon?) commit to maintaining the OSGi compatibility of Curator and make sure releases don’t introduce issues. Also, can the existing APIs remain and new, OSGi compatible parallel APIs be added? -JZ On March 31, 2015 at 7:39:08 AM, Simon Kitching (simon.kitch...@smartstream-stp.com<mailto:simon.kitch...@smartstream-stp.com>) wrote: Hi, I've noticed that several curator classes expose the use of classes from google's guava library [1] as part of their *public* api. [1] maven artifact "com.google.guava:guava" which contains java packages com.google.common.* In an OSGi environment, it is possible to load multiple different versions of the same library, as long as that library is a purely internal implementation detail. Unfortunately, as curator exposes its use of guava, this makes it impossible for code that uses curator to also use a different version of Guava for its own purposes. Unfortunately, this has just bitten me : I need to write code that uses both curator (requires guava 16.0 or later) and a third-party library that requires an earlier version of guava. Are there any objections to me raising an enhancement issue in JIRA for this? Note that this change would be a binary incompatibility (though fairly limited). The problem classes that I have found are: * curator-framework: org.apache.curator.framework.listen.ListenerContainer : method forEach takes a parameter of type com.google.common.base.Function * curator-framework: org.apache.curator.framework.api.transaction.CuratorTransactionResult : method ofTypeAndPath returns com.google.common.base.Predicate * curator-x-discovery-server: org.apache.curator.x.discovery.server.contexts.GenericDiscoveryContext : constructor takes param of type com.google.common.reflect.TypeToken * curator-x-discovery: org.apache.curator.x.discovery.InstanceFilter : inherits from com.google.common.base.Predicate And by the way, I noticed that org.codehaus.jackson types are also used in public APIs (at least, GenericDiscoveryContext). It may also be worth looking into whether it is really necessary to expose this dependency. The goal of the change would be to ensure that in the MANIFEST.MF file for each curator bundle (jarfile), the Export-Packages line minimises the "uses:=" entries which refer to non-curator packages. A uses-constraint on a package should only be needed when something in the package being exported uses an external type in its public API. As a separate problem, I have noticed that with the 2.7.1 release (at least), the "bnd" tool (via maven-bundle-plugin) is adding entries to the "uses" entries even when the referenced library is purely used internally. I have found a reference (https://github.com/emlun/bnd-uses-strange) that suggests this is a bug which is fixed in later bnd releases. Unfortunately I can find no release-notes for bnd, nor any source-code repository so cannot confirm this. However updating curator/pom.xml to specify the following fixes the "uses" clauses: <maven-bundle-plugin-version>2.5.3</maven-bundle-plugin-version> Thanks & Regards, Simon ________________________________ The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. SmartStream Technologies GmbH, Vienna Twin Tower, Wienerbergstrasse 11, 1100 Vienna, Austria, FN 194340w, HG Wien ________________________________ The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. SmartStream Technologies GmbH, Vienna Twin Tower, Wienerbergstrasse 11, 1100 Vienna, Austria, FN 194340w, HG Wien
