Hi Carsten, You are right, the BVP with the highest service.ranking is called last. But shouldn't it be called first, in order to be consistent with the OSGi way of obtaining a reference? To me it's counter-intuitive to set the service.ranking value to a negative value if I want my BVP to be called before a another BVP with no service.ranking property set explicitly.
In the end I think the answer revolves around the way we think a BVP is more powerful: if it's called last in the queue or first. Regards, Radu On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Radu, > > I think the current order is giving the service with the highest ordering > the final call. If two providers provide a value for the same key, the one > with the highest wins as it is called last. So I think this matches the > other usages of service ranking. > > Regards > Carsten > > > 2014-08-22 17:17 GMT+02:00 Radu Cotescu <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > In SLING-3320 [0] we introduced some ordering in the BVPs maps, such that > > BVPs are called using the natural ordering of their ServiceReferences, > > which is based on the service.ranking value: the higher the > service.ranking > > is, the later in the call chain will a BVP be called to add its bindings. > > > > Given that in the OSGi world the service.ranking is used to determine > which > > implementation is returned for a certain service, the rule of thumb being > > that the higher the service.ranking is the most likely that > implementation > > will be provided, should't we actually reverse the sort order of the > BVPs? > > > > In theory this might introduce some subtle bugs in clients' code, but no > > one complained when we introduced the ordering in the first place. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Cheers, > > Radu > > > > [0] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-3320 > > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected] >
