Thank you all!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I consider getDataFile an intrinsic part of OSGi since it is the only > > reasonable way for a bundle to have some persistent data. The optionality > > was only there for embedded devices that did not have a file system. Any > > reasonable implementation today has no real excuses not to support it. > > Some of us have even gone so far as to emulate a filesystem on a device > which didn't really have one, just to support getDataFile ;-). For the use > case at hand it seems like the right tool for the job, so long as due care > is taken wrt race conditions, imperfect data from some OS's, etc.. > > From the point of view of an "way for a bundle to have some persistent > data" though, wouldn't that be more a job for Preferences Service? > > Kid regards, > > Chris Gray > > > As a clarification, even with a SecurityManager you should be able to > > getDataFile, the framework must automatically provide the proper > > permissions. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Peter Kriens > > > > > > > > > > On 10 aug. 2014, at 07:24, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Ray > >> > >> Not sure, whether the getDataFile method is an anti-pattern. I surely > >> hope not :-) > >> > >> We use it here and there as well for bundle-private state information. > >> The nice thing is that it survives bundle updates and automatically > >> cleaned up when the bundle is uninstalled. To me it falls into the > >> category of features: If you know exactly what you are doing, it is a > >> useful thing. > >> > >> I think the only caveat is that getDataFile may not be implemented (and > >> of course that it is protected if a SecurityManager is active) on > >> certain platforms. > >> > >> Regards > >> Felix > >> > >> Am 09.08.2014 um 19:26 schrieb Raymond Auge <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Hey All, > >>> > >>> Over the years osgi has identified a few anti-patterns in it's initial > >>> design (such as activators, etc.) > >>> > >>> I'm wondering if > >>> > >>> core/org/osgi/framework/Bundle.html#getDataFile(java.lang.String) > >>> > >>> is still considered to be a useful pattern. > >>> > >>> My use case is to prevent multiple attempts to perform a DB upgrade > >>> process. > >>> > >>> Now, this operation is idempotent. However, it's also rather expensive > >>> and could slow initialization considerably so I'd like to persist the > >>> fact that the operation was completed successfully with some sort of > >>> stored flag. > >>> > >>> Another option would be checking if the bundle has just been installed. > >>> Is this possible? (I believe not). > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Raymond Augé (@rotty3000) > >>> Senior Software Architect > >>> Liferay, Inc. (@Liferay) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile> (@rotty3000) Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com> (@Liferay)
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
