On 7/28/09 9:47 AM, David Savage wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/27/09 8:24 AM, David Savage wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Richard S. Hall<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/24/09 12:35 PM, David Savage wrote:
To lay my cards on the table, I kinda like resolve=compile as it dove
tails kinda neatly with resolution=optional, but equally it seems
kinda bizarre to be adding another dimension to this whole problem
when people are worried about the complexity of OSGi. If there is a
way to do this without exposing developers to it that would be /great/
but as with OSGi I don't think we should worry about doing the right
thing at the base layer IDE tools and other schemes can always
simpilify this whole space down again to joe blogs. I guess it's a
question of what is "right".
So I guess the end result of this email is, what are your thoughts?
* Is resolve=compile a good idea?
* Should it be resolution=compile?
* Any other options?
Isn't this some form of "uses" constraint? Middle exposes Top because it
inherits from it, so if you follow transitive "uses" constraints you
could
possibly assume that compile-time access is needed.
Hmmm you're right it certainly resembles uses - should have spotted
that myself. However I have a feeling it may get a bit hairy in
certain edge cases, i.e. Top may not be in an exported package which
could work at runtime I believe, as Middle would provide the class
path to Top?
I agree, it might not work in every case, but it seems like a good place to
start. It seems in the general case, if a type is exposed, then someone must
have a dependency on it or contain it somewhere in the transitive set of
dependencies, otherwise it couldn't be exposed...
I guess the only concern I have with this approach is making sure it
doesn't get in the way of developers - i.e. the uses should be
calculated by the tooling vs expecting the developers to manage this
manually. Uses is a pretty nasty equation to calculate at runtime and
in an IDE environment where devs are cutting/refactoring code I guess
I'm just wary that it has the possibility to spin out of control and
lock up the IDE. Also should be careful at implementation time to
allow the calculation to be done in such a way as to allow caching so
it doesn't grind the IDE to a halt.
I worry about this during framework run time too! :-)
That's why we need to devise a decent algorithm that doesn't do this and
we can share among our subprojects that require resolving.
-> richard
* What to do about fragments?
I don't think the fragment issue should be handled, since that is a bogus
use case for fragments from my point of view. Fragments are intended to
be
optional extensions to the host, but in this case the host is fibbing
about
its contents because it expects to have a fragment attached to it. In
reality, the fragment should have the exports, not the host.
Tend to agree it is a bogus scenario - if only it wasn't happening in
one of the most used OSGi libraries available :( I guess Eclipse
probably have a good reason for doing this - not sure what but I'll
give them the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like a good idea to create whole new mechanisms
to support improper use cases.
Agree in principle and I certainly want sigil to encourage best
practice OSGi development. But in real world projects the edges are
very rarely clean cut - so we need to provide migration paths at
least. I'll push this out for the time being as I have a work around
for fragments of this type - it's a bit messy but involves no new
options on require bundle at least.
Regards,
Dave
-> richard
I think I've figured out a way to work around it for the time being -
which takes the pressure off from a sigil release point of view. I'll
add the fragment to the ordinary classpath vs the OSGi filtered one,
so I can at least compile against it without dragging in an external
dependency at runtime. The danger with this approach is that unwary
developers may link against a non exported package by mistake. Just
wonder if there is a way to make this work without complicating the
development model (or the sigil code) too much...
-> richard
* Is anyone still there (i.e. has this email lost you all?)?
Regards,
Dave
