With the new features service, these kind of options are more difficult, because they need to be persisted. The new resolver works on a known set of inputs and compute the end result, then do the diffs with the current state. So one time options are not really a good fit.
2015-04-13 18:22 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: > Maybe we can introduce a --force option to stop whatever the > bundle/feature is used by another feature ? > > Regards > JB > > > On 04/13/2015 06:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> We also have to take care about the started="false" flag somehow. >> I suppose if a feature flags the bundle as started="false", it would >> behave >> as if this feature was stopped for the computation of that bundle state. >> >> I'm fine with this behaviour, we just to understand that there's no way to >> make sure a bundle is stopped. >> >> >> 2015-04-13 18:04 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >> >> I'm with you on that: we just have to agree on the behaviour and document >>> it accordingly. >>> >>> In my opinion, if a bundle is used by a feature (feature A), it should >>> not >>> be stopped if we stop another feature that uses it (feature B). >>> >>> It's the same for the transitive features. >>> If a feature is used by a feature, it should not be stopped if we stop >>> another feature that used it ;) >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> >>> On 04/13/2015 06:01 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I was thinking about it. >>>> Though the obvious other solution is to fix it. >>>> >>>> I have actually started an email this morning to discuss but I haven't >>>> finished it. >>>> >>>> Overall, I think it may not be very difficult to fix, as the bundle >>>> state >>>> changes are already handled correctly afaik. The real problem is to >>>> agree >>>> on the semantics on the effects, so that we can compute the desired >>>> state >>>> of each bundle correctly. >>>> >>>> Problems arise when a bundle is used by several features, one of which >>>> being started and the other resolved. >>>> >>>> Anyway, it's really up to you, I don't mind fixing the code as long as >>>> we >>>> agree on the behaviour. >>>> >>>> 2015-04-13 17:51 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I discussed with Christian about KARAF-3102. >>>>> >>>>> The feature lifecycle doesn't actually fully work, especially around >>>>> the >>>>> stop action. >>>>> >>>>> In order to avoid to perturb the users, I think we should remove the >>>>> features lifecycle commands. Else, if they are provided, users will try >>>>> it >>>>> and may be disappointed as they won't work as expected. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> -- >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >>> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
