[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15889802#comment-15889802
]
Felix Meschberger edited comment on SLING-6578 at 3/1/17 11:04 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should still use the service.pid. According to the spec:
{quote}
The purpose of a Persistent Identifier (PID) is to identify a service across
Framework restarts. Services that can reference the same underlying entity
every time they are registered should therefore use a service property that
contains a PID. The name of the service property for PID is defined as
service.pid. The PID is a unique identifier for a service that persists over
multiple invocations of the Framework. For a given service, the same PID should
always be used. If the bundle is stopped and later started, the same PID must
always be used.
The format of the PID should be:
pid ::= symbolic-name // See 1.3.2
{quote}
Yes, it is optional. But it serves to stably identify the service across
restarts. Of course you can go ahead and reinvent wheels and define a new
service property which is expected to be set. But this is exactly the same: It
is optional and may or may not exist.
Why not just define: service.pid is used. If missing, the service is ignored --
which is correct anyway as the service is not "addressable"
Also: I am not entirely sure the SLING-5839 case really applies to this
discussion.
was (Author: fmeschbe):
I think we should still use the service.pid. According to the spec:
The purpose of a Persistent Identifier (PID) is to identify a service
across Framework restarts. Ser-
vices that can reference the same underlying entity every time they are
registered should therefore
use a service property that contains a PID. The name of the service
property for PID is defined as
service.pid. The PID is a unique identifier for a service that persists
over multiple invocations of the
Framework. For a given service, the same PID should always be used. If the
bundle is stopped and
later started, the same PID must always be used.
The format of the PID should be:
pid ::= symbolic-name // See 1.3.2
Yes, it is optional. But it serves to stably identify the service across
restarts. Of course you can go ahead and reinvent wheels and define a new
service property which is expected to be set. But this is exactly the same: It
is optional and may or may not exist.
Why not just define: service.pid is used. If missing, the service is ignored --
which is correct anyway as the service is not "addressable"
Also: I am not entirely sure the SLING-5839 case really applies to this
discussion.
> Use "service.pid" property instead of class name to reference validators
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SLING-6578
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-6578
> Project: Sling
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Konrad Windszus
> Assignee: Konrad Windszus
>
> Leveraging the component's "service.pid" property value instead of its
> classname is more stable (even if implementation changes, the PID might stay
> the same) and also allows for configuration factories to refer to a specific
> validator configuration. The fallback should be the property "component.name"
> as "service.pid" is not always necessarily set. Basically the validator
> should be referable via each of those value, i.e. one of the "service.pid"s
> or the "component.name".
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
