On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Alan Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible for two different versions of a Fragment to be attached > to two different hosts? If you define your version ranges accordingly, they act as the attachment rules. So, yes it is possible.
> > Is it possible to attach a Fragment to a host that's already resolved? sure. > > IIUC, Fragments become resolved as a byproduct of the host, to which > it has been attached to, becoming resolved. If this is true then > resolving Fragments should be essentially a do nothing operation? Well, fragments don't have their own class loader and they are seen as part of the host. I think the spec is not 100% precise here (unless I overlooked something), but I suspect it to be the same behavior as with updating of already attached fragments. Here the spec states that the host has to be refreshed. The spec also states that attaching is part of the resolving process of the host, so I guess the host has to be resolved again, but I am not sure on that one. Maybe someone else can answer that one better. One thing I was always curious about is the resolving process together with fragments. The spec states that the class path of the host has to be searched first, so far so good, but how does this relate to the whole lookup process? When we are using a fragment will first the lookup process of the host finish from beginning to the end (Import-Package --> Require-Bundle -->...) before the fragment is asked or will it be like a ping pong affect (look for Import-Package in the host before the fragment, then look for Require-Bundle in the host before the fragment and so on). If the later is true, a fragment can be used to replace an internal class by defining an Import-Package (or Require-Bundle) statement and providing that one with a third bundle. If so, this might be useful as a pattern in order to replace corrupted implementations without violating licenses, because you do not have to touch the 3rd party bundle. If it is the first behavior, it is fine as well, because with that a bundle is more robust and resistant against other potentially malicious bundles. It would just be good to know. Sorry for bringing up my question in your thread, but I though it kinda fits in here. cheers, Mirko > > > Regards, > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
