BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM // office: +1 386 848 1781
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance // mobile: +1 386 848 3788
hargr...@us.ibm.com
----- Original message -----
From: Michael Lipp via osgi-dev <osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org>
Sent by: osgi-dev-boun...@mail.osgi.org
To: Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com>, OSGi Developer Mail List <osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [osgi-dev] Micro version ignored when resolving, rationale?
Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2019 09:33
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.But in the real world, every project imports "OSGi-fied" libraries, usually several, and they have bugs and (hopefully) fixes. So it is something to be considered. What good is a tool that works in an ideal world if you need something done in the real world.
- Michael
NeilOn 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 KriensOn 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 KriensOn 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
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@mail.osgi.org https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
