As I indicated to James, there's absolutely no order returned by the resolver. Karaf sorts them alphabetically, so i've raised KARAF-4825 and proposed a patch which can be further refined.
Guillaume 2016-11-19 12:34 GMT+01:00 Christian Schneider <[email protected]>: > I think it is very important to resolve as many bundles in one go as > possible. When installing them one by one it usually creates the need for > bundle refreshs. > > From the numbering of the bundle ids I found a strange thing btw. > When I create a feature with my own bundle and several dependent features > it seems that my own bundle always has the lowest bundle id and the others > follow in the reverse ordering. It looks a bit a like a depth first search. > I wonder if that could be reversed. It at least would make finding the user > bundles simpler at the end of the list. > Not a big thing for me but I wonder if it could be changed. > > I am not sure how it works exactly in the feature resolver. If it spits > out a list of bundles at some point then I think it might just work to > install the bundles in the reverse order. > > Christian > > > > On 18.11.2016 17:03, James Carman wrote: > >> Yes, I've tried using staged boot, but in 3.0.x it caused some classpath >> issues with CXF. It would be great if we could just set up our features >> so >> that they're just installed in the order they're defined. >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:56 AM Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> You mean installing the features one by one instead of all in one go ? >>> Have you tried using >>> (myfeature1,myfeature2),(myfeature3,myfeature4) >>> so that you end up with 2 stages ? >>> Ultimately, you can use >>> (myfeature1),(myfeature2),(myfeature3),(myfeature4) >>> >>> 2016-11-18 16:44 GMT+01:00 James Carman <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Karaf 3.0.8+ now provides predictable boot feature startup order, but the >>>> 4.0.x line does not provide that guarantee. It apparently tries to be >>>> smart and figure out what you need, but sometimes it just works better >>>> if >>>> we can let the user control things explicitly. Is there, perhaps, a >>>> compromise here? Could we perhaps have a switch in the >>>> org.apache.karaf.features.cfg file that allows you to turn on manual >>>> control of the startup order? I'm not the only one who has encountered >>>> this issue. There have been emails recently where other folks have >>>> observed it. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> James >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> ------------------------ >>> Red Hat, Open Source Integration >>> >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Web: http://fusesource.com >>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: [email protected] Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
