Dennis Reedy wrote:
So if this information is produced at build time, added into a jar's manifest,
what is the difference with using a convention of something like a maven
artifact to provide version and update support?
A very brief statement is that it would describe the actual API of a
package; the methods and fields of public class files, this information
would be generated from the classpath, without programmer input, and
stored as files in the jar file, in addition to the current bundle
metadata, see below:
I haven't worked out how to represent the metadata in textual form
yet, perhaps xml? The tool, uses a number of options to define its
analysis / search scope and classpath from which it builds a
collection containing DependencyRelationship objects that contain
class metadata. Each DependencyRelationship object contains two
collections, one for dependants and one for providers, each
DependencyRelationship forms a node in the dependency graph.
The DependencyRelationship objects can then grouped into a
collections, one for each package. You then iterate over the
collection to get all Provider's that are external to the package.
These DependencyRelationship Objects each represent a class from an
external (imported) package. This can then be grouped into
collections from different packages. Each of these collections
represent a dependency on an imported package.
The Package API itself is determined by class visibility. When I
refer to classes here, I'm referring to class files, so this includes
interfaces and abstract classes.
Only Public Classes form represent the Package API, from there you
drill down to the public class details:
* all public methods and field signatures.
* all protected method and field signatures.
* serialVersionUID
The DependencyPackageAPI signatures can be checked against the
PackageAPI signatures.
I guess this could be done with a method such as
public interface PackageMirror {
public boolean satisfies(DependencyPackageAPI depends);
}
The devils in the implementation details of the above method.
The devil is set out in Chapter 13 Binary Compatibility from the Java
Language Specification 3.0
Where this analysis gets really interesting is when a dependency is
published in return values of an exported PackageAPI, in this case a
client bundle importing a package from this bundle will also have to
import a Package that satisfies the common dependency. The runtime
will need to resolve all package dependencies prior to loading.
To generate the metadata I might persist to xml, all the
DependencyRelationship objects for a bundles exported packages as well
as the subset DepenencyRelationship objects from the import package
requirements.
The metadata might be stored in three files in the jar:
depends.xml
provides.xml
client_requirements.xml - packages that use this package X will depend
on these other packages, Y and Z, full PackageAPI signatures must be
captured for Y and Z also.
Or to be consistent with OSGi:
imports.xml
exports.xml
client_requirements.xml
If the metadata is too large (though I think they'll be ok) a SHA-1
checksum of these files might suffice, so they could be looked up as
required.
Currently my implementation only has the dependency relationships, it
doesn't yet harvest all the method and field signatures, although this
is quite straight forward with ASM.
As a result, a typical implentation will only depend upon the
interface, not package private classes or implementation details. A
later version of a Package could change a public class to a public
interface, and reimplement all methods in several package private
classes without altering the dependency metadata and still satisfy
backward compatibility.
Just a quick question, does this "Package API" differentiate between a
bundle simply using an interface vs one that implements it? Just
wondering.
Yes, very much so, see above; one that simply uses it would not
publish it in its client requirements, however one that implements it
will.
