On Saturday 01 October 2016 11:34:48 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Oliver Lietz wrote
> 
> > On Friday 30 September 2016 14:00:23 Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> >> Atm the provisioning model has a slightly larger function set as karaf
> >> features. We have support for framework properties and things like the
> >> repo init stuff.
> > 
> > I didn't find the statement in the OSGi spec (R6 core) you mentioned at
> > adaptTo() which says framework properties can be set at runtime.
> > 
> > I'm quite sure I looked at Felix source and docs (e.g. [1]) when it was a
> > topic last year and didn't find anything there also.
> > 
> > Can you point me to any significant source? (just to make sure it makes
> > sense to have framework properties in features at all)
> 
> It's true that you can't set framework properties at runtime, but you
> can set system properties at runtime. And the documentation of
> BundleContext#getProperty(String) says:
> "Returns the value of the specified property. If the key is not found in
> the Framework properties, the system properties are then searched".
> 
> And this is the back door to set framework properties at runtime. Which
> of course means that if a framework property is already set, setting it
> through a system property is not possible, deleting is also not
> possible. But I think all these cases are neglectable. As soon as two
> features are providing values for a single property it gets difficult
> anyway.
> 
> However, if the launcher does not use framework properties at all and
> relies on system properties completely this is dynamic as you can
> add/remove/delete these at runtime. But of course the code needs to be
> aware of this, usually bundles read the properties at
> startup/activation, changing the props after they are started has
> usually no effect. Changing the properties for the framework at runtime
> usually has no effect either. I think all of this is fine. So we just
> have to document the restrictions/behaviour clearly

Because of this difficulties (and portability between OSGi containers) I do 
prefer OSGi configurations where possible. And I agree that we have to much of 
them for getting Sling up and running (but that's an Oak issue).

Regards,
O.

>  Regards
> 
> Carsten

Reply via email to