On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Neil Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
> What kind of “friendly” Blueprint behaviour are you looking for? Since you > specified effective:=active on your R-C header, it will always be ignored > by the OSGi Framework itself. Ok got it! I had inkling of that but wasn't 100% sure. > So I assume you’re thinking about tooling, like the resolve panel in > Bndtools? > Actually no! I'm thinking runtime.. I'm just suffering some blueprint pains and trying to get clever. > > You can of course write Require-Capability headers exactly like this if > you wish. Also in theory we could get bnd to generate them by reading the > blueprint XML files. Currently bnd doesn’t do this, but we once did > something similar in repoindex for DS-based bundles, the principle being > pretty much the same. > > However this turned out to create more problems than it solved. If we > resolve the osgi.service namespace then it forces the required service to > be provided in the *same* framework. The issue we're having is just blueprint's overall fragility when it comes to throwing arbitrary delays into the lifecycle. DS just handles this gracefully, but BP is just a very spoiled brat here and screws everything up for everyone if it doesn't get exactly what it wants when it wants it. So integration tests randomly fail unrelated to the tests code simply because occasionally the pressure induced by the test causes a delay in blueprint's init... some service is delayed beyond it's timeout. .. just a pain. > However we might want to provide it from a remote framework using Remote > Services Admin. For this reason Bndtools has an option to ignore the > osgi.service namespace, treating it as non-effective, as follows: > > -resolve.effective: active; skip:="osgi.service" > > Regards, > Neil > > > > On 13 Jan 2015, at 00:36, Raymond Auge <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey All, > > > > I have a (hopefully not completely stupid) question about blueprint and > > > > Require-Capability: osgi.service;filter:="(...)";effective:=active > > > > Could blueprint be made to behave a little more friendly by using a > require-cap on a service which the blueprint context depends on? > > > > - Ray > > _______________________________________________ > > 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) Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org> (@OSGiAlliance)
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
