On Thursday 16 August 2007 05:34:41 pm BJ Hargrave wrote: > Eric Swindell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2007-08-16 18:25:27: > > Thanks for the clarification. It's actually 6.1.4.8. > > Uhhh, not in the latest version, 4.1, of the spec :-)
I stand corrected. > > > Your quote of the spec still does not say anything about uninstall and > > restart. One question here is whether 'uninstalled' means existing with > > an > > > UNINSTALLED state or uninstalled as in it was uninstalled and the > > Framework > > > was restarted. > > It means forever. That is, that framework instance can never reuse a > bundle id. Regardless of the number of times the framework is restarted. > The only conceivable way to reuse a bundle id would be to uninstall ALL > the bundles (and any persistent storage owned by those bundles) and then > you could restart at bundle id 1. But this is really no different than > throwing away the framework instance and starting with a fresh instance. The spec never mentions "eternity" :) I mean, this isn't a religion. Or is it :) By "throwing away the framework instance and starting with a fresh instance", do you mean shuting down the framework instance and restarting it? If the instance is gone, I'd consider it 'thrown away'. If thrown away, then you're stating that it doesn't matter what the bundle ids are when restarting and that they could restart at bundle id 1. > > > It also states "This method must continue to return this bundle's unique > > > > identifier while this bundle is in the UNINSTALLED state." > > This means that if the Bundle object is still reachable and the bundle it > represents is uninstalled, i.e. Bundle.getState() == Bundle.UNINSTALLED, > then the Bundle.getBundleId must return the bundle's id. Once the Bundle > object is unreachable, it does not really matter what the method returns > since no one can call it :-) Right! If the Bundle object is unreachable, then it doesn't matter. In other words, if I uninstall a Bundle and restart the framework ( 'throw it away' in your lingo ), then id consistency does not matter. Seems like we both agree that it is not within the spec :) > > But the framework instance it still not allows to reuse the bundle id. > > > Seems like either > > the language here could have been clearer or perhaps the requirementwas > > that > > > of UNINSTALLED state, e.g. if you uninstall a Bundle, that Bundle id is > > not > > > to be reused with the running Framework versus bundle ids are permanent > > unique identifiers which remain unique even after a bundle is > > uninstalled and > > > the Framework instance is terminated. > > The latter. > > > Eric > > > > On Thursday 16 August 2007 05:05:07 pm 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."
