[email protected] wrote on 2013/06/20 13:43:40: > From: Harald Niesche <[email protected]>
> In R5 the definition of service ranking order is in paragraph 5.2.6 > of the core spec (osgi.r5-core-5.0.0.pdf, Page 118) and it contains > this passage: > > "The ranking order is defined as follows: > > • Sorted on descending ranking number (highest first) > > • If the ranking numbers are equal, sorted on ascending > service.id property (oldest first). > > This ordering is complete because service ids are never reused > and handed out in order of their registration time. That is, a > service that is registered later will have a higher service id. > Therefore, the ranking order is in ascending service.ranking numeric > order where ties give a preference to the earlier registrant. > > The ranking order is the reverse of the natural ordering of a > ServiceReference object." > > > Both "sorted on descending ranking number" and "ranking order is the > reverse of the natural ordering" (which refers to the definition of > the compareTo method on ServiceReference, right?) contradict > "Therefore, the ranking order is in ascending service.ranking > numeric order where ties give a preference to the earlier registrant." > > Should this be changed in the Spec? > Yes. I'll open a bug and fix the spec text for the next release and publish an errata. Thanks for the eagle eyes! -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [email protected] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
