Hi,
2014-05-19 22:57 GMT+02:00 David Jencks <[email protected]>: > There are some difficulties with factory components and DTO/mutliple pid > support. In terms of the spec, DTO and factory components don't work well > together, see bug 2683 (I'm not sure how visible this is to > non-osgi-members). In Felix, > > 1. I think we should not support the obsolete factory configuration >> > newInstance-like behavior on namespace 1.3+ components. We shouldn't have > supported it after namespace 1.0, but we should stop now for sure. Trying > to support this with multiple pids is just too weird. > > +1, yes we should have dropped that support with earlier namespaces :( > 2. Because of how I implemented multiple pid support for normal > components, I think it would be easy to Implement factory config > multiple > instances of the ComponentFactory service. I believe this behavior was > requested by Pierre de Rop. There's an additional problem if you do this > that you can't distinguish the ComponentFactory services registered from > the multiple factory configurations. To solve this I propose that > configuration properties prefixed with "org.apache.felix.scr.factory." > (exact string up for discussion) be added to the ComponentFactory service > properties. Of course all this would have to be enabled by an flag in the > xml such as felix:factoryComponentFactoryPID="true" (no good ideas on this > one yet). > Sounds fine to me. Would it make sense to get this into RFC190? > > As a reminder, a few days ago I said I was about to remove the legacy > configuration system entirely in favor of the spec one based on DTOs since > they are conceptually incompatible and the existing one is fundamentally > confused. So far no response so it's going soon…. > I agree, let's just go forward with the DTOs Carsten > > Comments? > > thanks > david jencks > > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
