> because services from lazy activated bundles are available prior to being started
Technically that is not true. Services from lazy activated bundles are available prior to being *activated* but the bundle must have been started. That is, not in RESOLVED state; STARTING or ACTIVE. > Since the bundle providing the extension is STARTED at this point, and all other lazy activated bundles are STARTING This sounds like a start ordering issue. Since extensions are active in the RESOLVED state, the system will need to be configured such that all bundles which will use extension to access services are started before they will ever attempt to access the service. -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance hargr...@us.ibm.com office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: John Arthorne <john_artho...@ca.ibm.com> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 2009/09/17 10:17 Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Question about DI/ DS and Application model Sent by: equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org There is a mismatch, although use of DS brings the lifecycles closer together because services from lazy activated bundles are available prior to being started. I think the main problem here though is initializing executable extensions after they have been instantiated to provide them with the services they need. Since the bundle providing the extension is STARTED at this point, and all other lazy activated bundles are STARTING (and hence their services available to the SCR), I don't see the lifecycle difference causing a problem (although it's quite possible I'm missing something as I'm still relatively new to DS). John BJ Hargrave <hargr...@us.ibm.com> Sent by: equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 09/16/2009 10:29 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Question about DI/ DS and Application model Isn't there a big problem with the life cycle mismatch between services and extensions? Services require a bundle to be started. Extensions require a bundle to be resolved. -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance hargr...@us.ibm.com office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: John Arthorne <john_artho...@ca.ibm.com> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 2009/09/16 21:58 Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Question about DI/ DS and Application model Sent by: equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org Eventually someone has to decide which implementation of IMetadataRepositoryManager is going to be used. I think in the case of an application it is quite reasonable for the application to make this decision directly (by looking up the service, perhaps with some filter that helps to select the manager to use). By moving the lookup of IMetadataRepositoryManager into a DS component it just hides the fact that it is a simple service lookup and doesn't seem to offer any advantage. I think because both the service declaration, the implementation, and the client are all in the same bundle it's not a particularly interesting case. However I could imagine in more complex cases something like your solution 3 would be interesting. An executable extension factory could allow the services required by an executable extension to be injected into it rather than having the extension reach out. You'll see another package "solution3" in the bundle where I was playing around with another approach. I'm not sure it's any better than your solution 1 but you can take a look. John Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/i...@ibmca Sent by: equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 09/16/2009 04:00 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject [equinox-dev] Question about DI/ DS and Application model Today I have done some more DI exploration using DS to see how it fits with the constructs we have in eclipse and I'm struggling to integrate in a nice way with the application model (I mean without using static) and I'm looking to know how others are doing this? The one line summary of my experiment is: I have a class that does some work (named RepositoryDumper), it needs a service (RepoMgr). I want now to create an eclipse application that invokes the RepositoryDumper and I would like to not have to acquire the RepoMgr service manually. Here is what I have been exploring with: Solution 1: I have an application declared in the plugin.xml. I have created a DS component that instantiates RepositoryDumper. However the question now is how does the application (remember that an eclipse application extension needs to provides n class) can get a hold of the RepositoryDumper instance that got created by DS: - 1.1: Ugly -> Store the instance RepositoryDumper in the Activator of the plug-in - 1.2: Get the RepositoryDumper be registered as a Service and have the application get this service. I don't like this because now RepositoryDumper is visible to everybody just so I can get access to it Solution 2: This solution assumes that the declarative approach to the eclipse application model is the hindrance and works around it by registering an ApplicationDescriptor (org.osgi.service.application). To do so I create a DS component that instantiates the RepositoryDumper and also register an ApplicationDescriptor as a service. This has the nice attribute that everything gets injected and that the application is only available to run if all the necessary pieces are available. However it requires a lot of code since one has to implement ApplicationDescriptor and ApplicationHandle, and I don't think this application would even be launchable using the -application argument. Solution 3: This solution is an hybrid between 1 and 2 using the IExecutableExtensionFactory. There is a DS component that creates the RepositoryDumper and register a service, let's call it X. Then let's make the class specified in application extension (in the plugin.xml) implements IExecutableExtensionFactory and have it get the service X. This solution allows to have the application construction be completely done by injection however given that the application is contributed through extension registry it still is visible even though not ready to run. How are others doing this? Is this a real problem or is it just me? Should I just not worry about that and use static fields? Btw, the code is available /cvsroot/rt org.eclipse.equinox/incubator/p2/bundles/org.eclipse.equinox.p2.diagnostic Only solution 1 and 2 are available. Thx for your attention and feedback PaScaL_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
