Eric Swindell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2007-08-16 18:56:39:

> On Thursday 16 August 2007 05:47:37 pm BJ Hargrave wrote:
> > Use case: A bundle like Preference Service manages persistent storage 
for
> > other bundles based upon a bundles identity. This bundle needs to know
> > when a bundle for which it managing storage has permanently gone. If
> > bundle ids can be reused, the Prefs bundle would not be able to 
destroy
> > the original bundle's information and would provide it to the new 
bundle.
> > The Prefs bundle might not be running at the time the original  bundle 
is
> > uninstalled and thus would not receive the UNINSTALLED event. So it 
must
> > rely on the fact that the framework guarantees that bundle ids are 
never
> > reused.
> 
> Your premise implies that the implementation requirement takes higher 
> precedence than the spec. 

Huh? I am giving you an actual use case. Which is supports by the fact 
that bundle ids are not reused.

> Seems like the tail is wagging the dog :)  I 
> thought that symbolic name was added to the spec for bundle identity.

 Bundle symbolic name is NOT identity. Bundle ID is identity. Hence the 
ID. Multiple bundles can have the same symbolic name (with different 
versions).

> 
> >
> > In any case, you can take my word for it, since I was there when all 
this
> > was first conceived. From the R1 spec:
> >
> > "Once its value is assigned to a bundle, that value must not be reused 
for
> > another bundle, even if the original bundle is uninstalled."
> 
> If you read your prior posting and my prior reply, you'll see that 
> we agree on 
> the spec's interpretation.  You said that if the framework instance 
> was 'thrown away', then id consistency is not relevant.  I agree with 
this.

I do NOT agree with this based upon my previous clarification of what I 
meant by framework instance.
> 
> Eric
> 

You can either take my word (as a spec author) that bundle ids are not to 
be reused. Or you can choose to believe otherwise. In any case I am tired 
of this thread. 

-- 

BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

office: +1 386 848 1781
mobile: +1 386 848 3788


Reply via email to