Looking forward to any review :-) I've found an additional problem with ServiceFactory components that I'm trying to fix....
david jencks On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:54 AM, Pierre De Rop wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm happy to see that the test helped, and it seems that fixing this issue > was not an easy task, > congratulation ! > > For now, I can't reply to your question about the bind/unbind/updated method, > because I have not yet fully reviewed your fix, but this is an excellent > exercise for me and I will take time to understand the changes you made. > > So, from my side, I confirm, the testcase is now passing. > > However, I have a minor remark: the felix log level is now forced to debug: > see systemProperty( "ds.loglevel" ).value( "debug" ) in the > ComponentTestBase class), and I think that it might be better to run the > concurrent test in warn level, as before, because debug logs might reduce the > chances to reproduce any potential concurrency issues ... Anyway, I tried to > run the testcase with ds.loglevel=warn, and it is also passing OK. > > So, now, I will run again my nightly integration tests, in order to do more > validation. > > thanks again. > /pierre > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:23 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]> wrote: > I finally got everything to work :-) (see caveats in the bug report). > > The itest was extremely helpful :-) > > One of the changes I made that perhaps could use some review is that once the > bind/unbind/updated methods are set, they are never cleared from the > dependency manager. I don't think this is really a problem. Have I missed > something? > > We talked a bit a while ago about sharing the bind/unbind/updated methods > among dependency managers and trying to make them look up the methods only > once. I've moved most of the dependencyManager state out of the dependency > managers, so we might be able to move the rest of the state out and share the > dependency managers among all the component managers for the same component. > This might be better post 1.8 however. > > Please try out the changes and let me know if you find more problems! > > thanks > david jencks > > On Sep 2, 2012, at 11:02 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > > Excellent! > > > > I've been working on my idea how to fix this, but I'm still at the stage of > > getting the existing integration tests to pass. At least some stuff works > > :-) > > > > Looking forward to trying out your test case... > > > > david jencks > > > > On Sep 2, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Pierre De Rop wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I committed in revision 1379968 a (candidate) integration test, which seems > >> to reproduce the problem. > >> Hope it will help. > >> > >> regards; > >> /pierre > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Pierre De Rop > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Felix, > >>> > >>> ok, I will try to do it. > >>> > >>> regards; > >>> /pierre > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Felix Meschberger > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Am 31.08.2012 um 02:20 schrieb Pierre De Rop: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi David, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have progressed and it seems that now I can reproduce the problem, > >>>> using > >>>>> a sample code. > >>>>> It's a sample inspired from the scenario that you suggested in your > >>>>> previous post, with A > B > C, and A > C ... > >>>>> > >>>>> I will create a jira issue and will attach the sample to it. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks alot. > >>>> > >>>> Would be great if we could integrate that sample as an integration test > >>>> case. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Felix > >>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
