> So having default settings in the tool that cause a behavior that does
not comply with the specification should not be considered a bug?
Which specification?? There is NO specification in OSGi for how a packaging
tool such as bnd should generate bundles from Java classes and descriptors.
The default import range is an implementation choice of the bnd developers.
All functionality that is specced by OSGi here -- i.e. the resolving of the
bundles -- is working perfectly according to the relevant OSGi
specification.
As for why bnd makes this implementation choice, bear in mind that import
ranges are applied to packages, which in a pure and ideal world would
contain only interfaces and perhaps DTOs, but no implementation code. What
kind of "bugs" could we be talking about in such a package, other than
documentation? Of course the world is not always pure and ideal which is
why the default can be overridden.
Neil
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 09:54, Michael Lipp via osgi-dev <
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org> wrote:
>
> Considering this, lowering a lower bound of an Import-Package statement
> when resolving should be acknowledged as a bug.
>
> I beg to differ ...
>
> As said, you can set the consumer/provider policy to your desired strategy.
>
> So having default settings in the tool that cause a behavior that does not
> comply with the specification should not be considered a bug?
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter Kriens
>
> On 18 Jun 2019, at 10:33, Michael Lipp <m...@mnl.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> I expect there are two things at play. First, OSGi specifies things as you
> indicate. An import of [1.2.3.qualifier,2) must not select anything lower
> than 1.2.3.qualifier. Second, bnd does have heuristics that do drop the
> qualifier and micro part in calculating the import ranges from the exports
> on the class path.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, I think this explains things.
>
> [...]
>
> Conclusion, the spec is perfect but the implementations apply heuristics
> and may have bugs.
>
> The specification says (or defines, if you like): "micro - A change that
> does not affect the API, for example, a typo in a comment or a bug fix in
> an implementation." It explicitly invites the developer to indicate a bug
> fix by incrementing the micro part. There's no hint or requirement that he
> should increment the minor part to reflect a bug fix. I do not find your
> statement "The definition of the micro version is that it should not make a
> difference in runtime" to be supported by the spec or the Semantic
> Versioning Whitepaper. Actually, this interpretation would restrict the
> usage of the micro part to documentation changes because every bug fix
> changes the runtime behavior. This is, after all, what it is intended to do.
>
> Considering this, lowering a lower bound of an Import-Package statement
> when resolving should be acknowledged as a bug.
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter Kriens
>
> On 17 Jun 2019, at 12:14, Michael Lipp via osgi-dev <
> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have in my repository a bundle A-2.0.1 that exports packages with
> version 2.0.1 and a bundle A-2.0.3 that exports these packages with
> version 2.0.3. Version A-2.0.3 fixes a bug.
>
> I have a bundle B that imports the packages from A with import
> statements "... version=[2.0.3,3)" because the bug fix is crucial for
> the proper working of B.
>
> Clicking on "Resolve" in bndtools, I get a resolution with bundle
> A-2.0.1. I understand that this complies with the specification ("It is
> recommended to ignore the micro part of the version because systems tend
> to become very rigid if they require the latest bug fix to be deployed
> all the time.").
>
> What I don't understand is the rationale. I don't see any drawbacks in
> deploying the latest bug fix. Of course, there's always the risk of
> introducing a new bug with a new version, even if it is supposed to only
> fix a bug in the previous version. But if you're afraid of this, you may
> also not allow imports with version ranges such as "[1.0,2)" (for
> consumers).
>
> In my case, I now have to distribute bundle B with a release note to
> configure the resolution in such a way that only A 2.0.3 and up is used.
> Something that you would expect to happen automatically looking at the
> import statement. And if I want to make sure that the release note is
> not overlooked, the only way seems to be to check the version of "A" at
> run-time in the activation of "B". This is downright ugly.
>
> - Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSGi Developer Mail List
> osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
> https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
