I will be interested to see if you can successfully map the OSGi uses
concept into the SAT solver p2 uses. I briefly looked at that a long time
ago when we were refactoring the Equinox framework (Luna) and were
replacing the old Equinox resolver. It was far from obvious how you would
achieve this. At that time I opt'ed to collaborate with a common resolver
in Felix for the Equinox framework. But this is no magic implementation.
There are still cases where the OSGi resolver algorithm will blow up. In
Equinox we try to minimize that possibility by avoiding the resolution of
all (10000) bundles at once. But as Pascal states, this does leave out
some possible valid solutions that you will then not discover while
resolving.
If you do focus on how to map uses into the SAT solver in p2 I would be
interested in collaborating to see if such a resolver would outperform the
Felix resolver we use at runtime. My hope at the time I was looking into
this was to map an OSGi Resolver service on top of the SAT solver
implementation. But I cannot remember how the SAT solver is driven. I
suspect the split between the OSGI Resovler and the OSGi ResolveContext
will not fit well into the SAT implementation model.
Tom
From: Todor Boev <rinsv...@gmail.com>
To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org>
Date: 11/17/2016 02:22 AM
Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Convergence between p2 and the OSGi
resolver+repository
Sent by: equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
- Regarding batch resolution:
Ultimately I think the batch processing is about performance. At
provisioning time where finding the best solution trumps speed the
resolver can be executed against the entire set. But I have to try this.
After than the equinox runtime should be able to re-create a correct
(maybe not identical) resolution from the much smaller set of resources. I
have tried the resolver against about 700 bundles and it did okay, but
this is well short of 10,000. More research required....some day.
- Regarding the additional p2 concepts:
Can you point me to the documentation of how the resolution problem is
converted to a SAT formula?
Best regards
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Pascal Rapicault <pas...@rapicault.net>
wrote:
On 11/16/2016 10:49 AM, Todor Boev wrote:
- Regarding resolver behavior:
The goal is actually to replace the behavior of the objective function
with the behavior of the resolver. This is the best way to guarantee that
both p2 and the OSGi runtime agree on what is a consistent set of bundles.
For example p2 does not take into account package uses constraints which
leads to p2 selecting bundles that later fail to resolve at runtime. It
does not matter which way to resolve is better, so long as they agree.
Since the OSGi resolver is very unlikely to change it falls on p2 to match
it's behavior. My current company (software ag) has had quite a number of
issues where essentially p2 sets up the resolver to fail.
- Regarding resolver scalability:
The resolution is split between the resolver which processes the current
set of resources and the resolver context which selects candidates when
asked. If the goal is to support a very high number of candidates - a
resolver context impl optimized for searches in a large candidate space
can be provided. If the goal is to produce a solution that includes a very
high number of resources - more research is required. Even if the initial
set is 10,000 the resolver can be asked to process them not all at once,
but incrementally in batches or even one by one. Which is in fact what
equinox does today.
The thing is that if you look at a subset of the available bundles,
you may find a solution that is not the optimal one. p2 will consider all
the possible candidates in one resolution invocation.
I am trying to determine if it makes sense to invest effort in prototyping
this given that subtle changes in behavior are in fact a goal, rather than
an issue.
Even though on the surface p2 resolver looks similar to what the OSGi
resolver does, p2 has at least 2 additional concepts:
1) the expression of strict negation
2) the concept of patch
I'm tempted to think that it is probably simpler to add support for the
uses-clause in p2 (this has been a known issue for years, but I can't seem
to find the bug tonight) than it is to replace the resolver completely and
get all the tests to pass. The encoding of dependencies to a SAT formula
is well documented and so are the optimization functions.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Pascal Rapicault <pas...@rapicault.net>
wrote:
On 11/15/2016 12:52 PM, Todor Boev wrote:
Hello,
Are there any plans to bring together p2 and OSGi resolver+repository
standards?
There is no immediate plan for this.
It should be beneficial to have similar (maybe identical?) dependency
resolution at provisioning time and later at runtime.
The install time and runtime resolvers resolve a slightly different
problem because the install time resolver has to look for candidates in a
large space, whereas the runtime one has to connect as many components
together.
I have not tried replacing the p2 resolver with the new OSGi resolver
so I can't tell how it would perform.
Specifically:
- Is it possible to publish the bundle generic capabilities/requirements
to the p2 repository?
Yes this should be possible. The underlying p2 capability /
requirement model is really extensible and the current limitation is only
the serialized format.
- Is it possible to use the equinox Resolver inside the p2 Planner?
It is possible to get something going but I'm not sure if this will
scale (p2 resolver is able to perform seamlessly on 10's of thousands of
IUs), nor if you will be able to replicate the subtleties that result from
having an objective function.
- Even if the equinox Resolver can not be used is it possible for p2 to
handle generic requirements/capabilities?
Yes. This should not be too much work.
Regards,
Todor Boev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your
password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
