Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Hi Richard, I've given this issue some more thought and I realized that my starting point stands (a copy of the original mail is at the end of this one). If I try to execute these steps: g! deploy -s DA g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 g! refresh g! deploy -s DexA The deployment of DexA fails. If I understood correctly our discussion about bundle's location string (first mail quote after this one)and OBR , it shouldn't fail since OBR should try to deploy A@1.0.0.2 as an update of A@1.0.0.1 (or, at least, to install it using a different location string). The execution of the presented test case throws the following exception (note I changed the output's bundle names and versions to accommodate to the examples ones): Target resource(s): --- DexA (1.0.0) Deploying... ERROR: Resolver: Start error - DexA org.osgi.framework.BundleException: Unresolved constraint in bundle DexA [413]: Unable to resolve 413.0: missing requirement [413.0] osgi.wiring.bundle; ((osgi.wiring.bundle=A)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.resolveBundleRevision(Felix.java:3826) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.startBundle(Felix.java:1868) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:944) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:931) at org.apache.felix.bundlerepository.impl.ResolverImpl.deploy(ResolverImpl.java:630) at org.apache.felix.gogo.command.OBR.deploy(OBR.java:387) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Console.run(Console.java:62) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.console(Shell.java:203) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.gosh(Shell.java:128) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Activator.run(Activator.java:75) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:636) done. After which bundle DexA is left installed (not resolved nor active) in the framework: g! lb [... framework's bundles..] 411|Active |1|DA (1.0.0) 412|Active |1|A (1.0.0.1) 413|Installed |1|DexA (1.0.0) Am I missing something? Do you prefer I create a JIRA issue with the bundles attached so you can do furtheranalysis? Kind regards and thank you! On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. Matias SMmatias...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: [deleted some mails for ease of reading ...] On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Yes, please open a JIRA issue with the example bundles and a repository.xml file that I can play with. Thanks. - richard On 4/5/12 12:53 , Matias SM wrote: Hi Richard, I've given this issue some more thought and I realized that my starting point stands (a copy of the original mail is at the end of this one). If I try to execute these steps: g! deploy -s DA g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 g! refresh g! deploy -s DexA The deployment of DexA fails. If I understood correctly our discussion about bundle's location string (first mail quote after this one)and OBR , it shouldn't fail since OBR should try to deploy A@1.0.0.2 as an update of A@1.0.0.1 (or, at least, to install it using a different location string). The execution of the presented test case throws the following exception (note I changed the output's bundle names and versions to accommodate to the examples ones): Target resource(s): --- DexA (1.0.0) Deploying... ERROR: Resolver: Start error - DexA org.osgi.framework.BundleException: Unresolved constraint in bundle DexA [413]: Unable to resolve 413.0: missing requirement [413.0] osgi.wiring.bundle; ((osgi.wiring.bundle=A)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.resolveBundleRevision(Felix.java:3826) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.startBundle(Felix.java:1868) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:944) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:931) at org.apache.felix.bundlerepository.impl.ResolverImpl.deploy(ResolverImpl.java:630) at org.apache.felix.gogo.command.OBR.deploy(OBR.java:387) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Console.run(Console.java:62) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.console(Shell.java:203) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.gosh(Shell.java:128) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Activator.run(Activator.java:75) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:636) done. After which bundle DexA is left installed (not resolved nor active) in the framework: g! lb [... framework's bundles..] 411|Active |1|DA (1.0.0) 412|Active |1|A (1.0.0.1) 413|Installed |1|DexA (1.0.0) Am I missing something? Do you prefer I create a JIRA issue with the bundles attached so you can do furtheranalysis? Kind regards and thank you! On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. Matias SMmatias...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: [deleted some mails for ease of reading ...] On
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
I just created it: Key: FELIX-3446 URL:https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3446 HTH, Kind Regards On 05/04/12 15:15, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, please open a JIRA issue with the example bundles and a repository.xml file that I can play with. Thanks. - richard On 4/5/12 12:53 , Matias SM wrote: Hi Richard, I've given this issue some more thought and I realized that my starting point stands (a copy of the original mail is at the end of this one). If I try to execute these steps: g! deploy -s DA g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 g! refresh g! deploy -s DexA The deployment of DexA fails. If I understood correctly our discussion about bundle's location string (first mail quote after this one)and OBR , it shouldn't fail since OBR should try to deploy A@1.0.0.2 as an update of A@1.0.0.1 (or, at least, to install it using a different location string). The execution of the presented test case throws the following exception (note I changed the output's bundle names and versions to accommodate to the examples ones): Target resource(s): --- DexA (1.0.0) Deploying... ERROR: Resolver: Start error - DexA org.osgi.framework.BundleException: Unresolved constraint in bundle DexA [413]: Unable to resolve 413.0: missing requirement [413.0] osgi.wiring.bundle; ((osgi.wiring.bundle=A)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.resolveBundleRevision(Felix.java:3826) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.startBundle(Felix.java:1868) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:944) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:931) at org.apache.felix.bundlerepository.impl.ResolverImpl.deploy(ResolverImpl.java:630) at org.apache.felix.gogo.command.OBR.deploy(OBR.java:387) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Console.run(Console.java:62) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.console(Shell.java:203) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.gosh(Shell.java:128) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Activator.run(Activator.java:75) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:636) done. After which bundle DexA is left installed (not resolved nor active) in the framework: g! lb [... framework's bundles..] 411|Active |1|DA (1.0.0) 412|Active |1|A (1.0.0.1) 413|Installed |1|DexA (1.0.0) Am I missing something? Do you prefer I create a JIRA issue with the bundles attached so you can do furtheranalysis? Kind regards and thank you! On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Ok, great...watch the issue for any updates... - richard On 4/5/12 15:01 , Matias SM wrote: I just created it: Key: FELIX-3446 URL:https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3446 HTH, Kind Regards On 05/04/12 15:15, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, please open a JIRA issue with the example bundles and a repository.xml file that I can play with. Thanks. - richard On 4/5/12 12:53 , Matias SM wrote: Hi Richard, I've given this issue some more thought and I realized that my starting point stands (a copy of the original mail is at the end of this one). If I try to execute these steps: g! deploy -s DA g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 g! refresh g! deploy -s DexA The deployment of DexA fails. If I understood correctly our discussion about bundle's location string (first mail quote after this one)and OBR , it shouldn't fail since OBR should try to deploy A@1.0.0.2 as an update of A@1.0.0.1 (or, at least, to install it using a different location string). The execution of the presented test case throws the following exception (note I changed the output's bundle names and versions to accommodate to the examples ones): Target resource(s): --- DexA (1.0.0) Deploying... ERROR: Resolver: Start error - DexA org.osgi.framework.BundleException: Unresolved constraint in bundle DexA [413]: Unable to resolve 413.0: missing requirement [413.0] osgi.wiring.bundle; ((osgi.wiring.bundle=A)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.resolveBundleRevision(Felix.java:3826) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.startBundle(Felix.java:1868) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:944) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:931) at org.apache.felix.bundlerepository.impl.ResolverImpl.deploy(ResolverImpl.java:630) at org.apache.felix.gogo.command.OBR.deploy(OBR.java:387) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Console.run(Console.java:62) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.console(Shell.java:203) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.gosh(Shell.java:128) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Activator.run(Activator.java:75) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:636) done. After which bundle DexA is left installed (not resolved nor active) in the framework: g! lb [... framework's bundles..] 411|Active |1|DA (1.0.0) 412|Active |1|A (1.0.0.1) 413|Installed |1|DexA (1.0.0) Am I missing something? Do you prefer I create a JIRA issue with the bundles attached so you can do furtheranalysis? Kind regards and thank you! On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
I will, thank you On 05/04/12 16:12, Richard S. Hall wrote: Ok, great...watch the issue for any updates... - richard On 4/5/12 15:01 , Matias SM wrote: I just created it: Key: FELIX-3446 URL:https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-3446 HTH, Kind Regards On 05/04/12 15:15, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, please open a JIRA issue with the example bundles and a repository.xml file that I can play with. Thanks. - richard On 4/5/12 12:53 , Matias SM wrote: Hi Richard, I've given this issue some more thought and I realized that my starting point stands (a copy of the original mail is at the end of this one). If I try to execute these steps: g! deploy -s DA g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 g! refresh g! deploy -s DexA The deployment of DexA fails. If I understood correctly our discussion about bundle's location string (first mail quote after this one)and OBR , it shouldn't fail since OBR should try to deploy A@1.0.0.2 as an update of A@1.0.0.1 (or, at least, to install it using a different location string). The execution of the presented test case throws the following exception (note I changed the output's bundle names and versions to accommodate to the examples ones): Target resource(s): --- DexA (1.0.0) Deploying... ERROR: Resolver: Start error - DexA org.osgi.framework.BundleException: Unresolved constraint in bundle DexA [413]: Unable to resolve 413.0: missing requirement [413.0] osgi.wiring.bundle; ((osgi.wiring.bundle=A)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)(bundle-version=1.0.0.2)) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.resolveBundleRevision(Felix.java:3826) at org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.startBundle(Felix.java:1868) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:944) at org.apache.felix.framework.BundleImpl.start(BundleImpl.java:931) at org.apache.felix.bundlerepository.impl.ResolverImpl.deploy(ResolverImpl.java:630) at org.apache.felix.gogo.command.OBR.deploy(OBR.java:387) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Console.run(Console.java:62) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.console(Shell.java:203) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Shell.gosh(Shell.java:128) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:616) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Reflective.invoke(Reflective.java:137) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandProxy.execute(CommandProxy.java:82) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeCmd(Closure.java:477) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.executeStatement(Closure.java:403) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Pipe.run(Pipe.java:108) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:183) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.Closure.execute(Closure.java:120) at org.apache.felix.gogo.runtime.CommandSessionImpl.execute(CommandSessionImpl.java:89) at org.apache.felix.gogo.shell.Activator.run(Activator.java:75) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:636) done. After which bundle DexA is left installed (not resolved nor active) in the framework: g! lb [... framework's bundles..] 411|Active |1|DA (1.0.0) 412|Active |1|A (1.0.0.1) 413|Installed |1|DexA (1.0.0) Am I missing something? Do you prefer I create a JIRA issue with the bundles attached so you can do furtheranalysis? Kind regards and thank you! On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Ok, thank you very much for your comments Richard. I will keep them in mind and do further experimentation. On 02/04/12 21:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: The location string is a deployer assigned persistent identifier, so it cannot change. Your confusion arises because frameworks use the URL as the default location string for simple installs, but the two are unrelated in reality. Matias SMmatias...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Ok, I see. Shouldn't the location string be replaced (with the updated version location) when the bundle is updated? It seems a little confusing. Thank you very much for the clarification, I will do some more experimentation keeping in mind what we discussed. On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that collaboration among them becomes limited to little islands of bundles that happen to be using the same same providers. Note that while I'm using the shell to run my tests, my intention is to use the OBR API in my code. So the solution may be available only in the API. Sorry the mail got so long but I wanted to state my problem as clear as possible. Thank you for taking the time to read and to answer! Still not clear to me what the actual issue is or the solution, but at a minimum OBR should probably refresh after update. - richard Kind regards [1] http://felix.apache.org/site/apache-felix-osgi-bundle-repository.html#ApacheFelixOSGiBundleRepository-OBRServiceAPI - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that collaboration among them becomes limited to little islands of bundles that happen to be using the same same providers. I understand. But updating the bundles may lead to the problem I presented, where a bundle can't be resolved despite all necessary resources are available. I know that this behavior is not defined by OBR but OSGi in general. But I don't understand why once a bundle is updated, an older version of it can't be re-installed so a bundle depending on it can be successfully resolved. I think that allowing this may help to avoid problems like the one presented (note that I have almost no experience with OSGi so maybe I'm talking nonsenses). Do you know the reason to forbid the installation of an old version of an updated bundle? Note that while I'm using the shell to run my tests, my intention is to use the OBR API in my code. So the solution may be available only in the API. Sorry the mail got so long but I wanted to state my problem as clear as possible. Thank you for taking the time to read and to answer! Still not clear to me what the actual issue is or the solution, but at a minimum OBR should probably refresh after update. The issue is that the DexA
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
On 4/2/12 15:42, Matias SM wrote: Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. Still seems like it should be possible for OBR to deploy DexA by updating 1.0.0.1 to 1.0.0.2. --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. Ok, I see your point now. No, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The reason to favor updating existing bundles is the reason I gave below. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that collaboration among them becomes limited to little islands of bundles that happen to be using the same same providers. I understand. But updating the bundles may lead to the problem I presented, where a bundle can't be resolved despite all necessary resources are available. I know that this behavior is not defined by OBR but OSGi in general. But I don't understand why once a bundle is updated, an older version of it can't be re-installed so a bundle depending on it can be successfully resolved. I think that allowing this may help to avoid problems like the one presented (note that I have almost no experience with OSGi so maybe I'm talking nonsenses). Do you know the reason to forbid the installation of an old version of an updated bundle? You can re-install older versions. OBR will *only* update an existing bundle if it still satisfies all existing constraints. If not, then it will install
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
On 02/04/12 17:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 15:42, Matias SM wrote: Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. Still seems like it should be possible for OBR to deploy DexA by updating 1.0.0.1 to 1.0.0.2. Wouldn't that break the request that bundle A@1.0.0.1 is deployed (step 2 in test)? --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. Ok, I see your point now. No, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The reason to favor updating existing bundles is the reason I gave below. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that collaboration among them becomes limited to little islands of bundles that happen to be using the same same providers. I understand. But updating the bundles may lead to the problem I presented, where a bundle can't be resolved despite all necessary resources are available. I know that this behavior is not defined by OBR but OSGi in general. But I don't understand why once a bundle is updated, an older version of it can't be re-installed so a bundle depending on it can be successfully resolved. I think that allowing this may help to avoid problems like the one presented (note that I have almost no experience with OSGi so maybe I'm talking nonsenses). Do you know the reason to forbid the installation of an old version of an updated bundle? You can re-install
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
On 4/2/12 17:05, Matias SM wrote: On 02/04/12 17:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 15:42, Matias SM wrote: Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. Still seems like it should be possible for OBR to deploy DexA by updating 1.0.0.1 to 1.0.0.2. Wouldn't that break the request that bundle A@1.0.0.1 is deployed (step 2 in test)? No. OBR doesn't keep some set of desired deployed bundles or anything like that...it isn't that sophisticated. It simply tries to deploy bundles given the current context of the framework. So, the fact that you told OBR to deploy foo in some previous request has no bearing on subsequent requests other than the fact that it impacts the set of installed bundles from which it starts to perform its operation...but that is no different than if you installed a given bundle manually and didn't use OBR at all. --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. Ok, I see your point now. No, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The reason to favor updating existing bundles is the reason I gave below. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that collaboration among them becomes limited to little islands of bundles that happen to be using the same same providers. I understand. But updating the bundles may lead to the problem I presented, where a bundle can't be resolved
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
On 02/04/12 18:32, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 17:05, Matias SM wrote: On 02/04/12 17:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 15:42, Matias SM wrote: Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. Still seems like it should be possible for OBR to deploy DexA by updating 1.0.0.1 to 1.0.0.2. Wouldn't that break the request that bundle A@1.0.0.1 is deployed (step 2 in test)? No. OBR doesn't keep some set of desired deployed bundles or anything like that...it isn't that sophisticated. It simply tries to deploy bundles given the current context of the framework. So, the fact that you told OBR to deploy foo in some previous request has no bearing on subsequent requests other than the fact that it impacts the set of installed bundles from which it starts to perform its operation...but that is no different than if you installed a given bundle manually and didn't use OBR at all. Ok, now I understand your point. Though I can see that this behavior may lead to some issues if bundle A@1.0.0.1 has some kind of functionality other than defining classes to export. --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. Ok, I see your point now. No, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other. The reason to favor updating existing bundles is the reason I gave below. My questions are: 1- Is there a way to force the installation of different bundle versions (instead of the update of older ones) when deploying through OBR? No, I don't think so. 2- What kind of issues may this behavior (installation of different versions) rise? (this is not considering the problem of having a lot of bundles installed) Lots of providers is generally a bad thing since it creates many partitions in the overall class spaces of the bundles, meaning that
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. Matias SM matias...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: On 02/04/12 18:32, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 17:05, Matias SM wrote: On 02/04/12 17:31, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/2/12 15:42, Matias SM wrote: Thank you for your answer Richard, please see my comments inline: On 02/04/12 14:40, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 4/1/12 12:32, Matias SM wrote: Hi everybody, I'm using OBR to help me resolve bundle deployment. Everything works great and as expected but I'm facing a situation I don't know how to solve. --- Here is my test scenario: I have the following bundles in an OBR repository: * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.1 | exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: A | Bundle-Version: 1.0.0.2| exports: (package: p.a version: 1) * SymbolicName: DA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) * SymbolicName: DexA | Bundle-Version: 1| depends: (package: p.a version: [1 , 2) ) and (bundle: A version: [1.0.0.2, 1.0.0.2] ) Then my test runs as follows: g! deploy -s DA == this also deploys A version 1.0.0.2 (I guess because it is the newer bundle that exports pa version 1) g! deploy -s A@1.0.0.1 == this __updates__ the previously deployed A (version 1.0.0.2) First issue, if I run: g!deploy -s A@1.0.0.2 == then OBR executes successfully but A@1.0.0.2 is not installed (since there is an updated version of it already resolved). I know this is the expected behavior, but I would like to be able to deploy A@1.0.0.2 It seems like OBR should probably be performing a refresh after it does an update, so there isn't an older version hanging around. Second (and worse) issue, if I now run: g!refresh == so A@1.0.0.2 is completely uninstalled from the framework And then: g!deploy -s DexA == this deployment __fails__ because A@1.0.0.2 can't be reinstalled in the framework!! Not sure why that would be. Are you seeing some sort of error? I think that the problem here is that to be able to update the dependency again to A@1.0.0.2, OBR should withhold A@1.0.0.1 (that was deployed in step 2). I don't think this should be a valid thing to do. Still seems like it should be possible for OBR to deploy DexA by updating 1.0.0.1 to 1.0.0.2. Wouldn't that break the request that bundle A@1.0.0.1 is deployed (step 2 in test)? No. OBR doesn't keep some set of desired deployed bundles or anything like that...it isn't that sophisticated. It simply tries to deploy bundles given the current context of the framework. So, the fact that you told OBR to deploy foo in some previous request has no bearing on subsequent requests other than the fact that it impacts the set of installed bundles from which it starts to perform its operation...but that is no different than if you installed a given bundle manually and didn't use OBR at all. Ok, now I understand your point. Though I can see that this behavior may lead to some issues if bundle A@1.0.0.1 has some kind of functionality other than defining classes to export. --- In the OBR project web page [1] can be read: OBR's deployment algorithm appears simple at first glance, but it is actually somewhat complex due to the nature of deploying independently developed bundles. For example, in an ideal world, if an update for a bundle is made available, then updates for all of the bundles satisfying its dependencies are also made available. Unfortunately, this may not be the case, thus the deployment algorithm might have to install new bundles during an update to satisfy either new dependencies or updated dependencies that can no longer be satisfied by existing local bundles. In response to this type of scenario, ___the OBR deployment algorithm tries to favor updating existing bundles, if possible, as opposed to installing new bundles to satisfy dependencies. I don't fully understand this explanation but I get that the described behavior is as intended. Not sure which part you don't understand. What I don't understand is how the need to favor updating existing bundles is concluded from the problem stated in the previous sentences. It is not clear to me the relation between the need to install new bundles during an update and the algorithm that tries to favor updating existing bundles instead of installing new ones. Ok, I see your
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
Ok, I see. Shouldn't the location string be replaced (with the updated version location) when the bundle is updated? It seems a little confusing. Thank you very much for the clarification, I will do some more experimentation keeping in mind what we discussed. On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
Re: OBR and automatic bundle update
The location string is a deployer assigned persistent identifier, so it cannot change. Your confusion arises because frameworks use the URL as the default location string for simple installs, but the two are unrelated in reality. Matias SM matias...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Ok, I see. Shouldn't the location string be replaced (with the updated version location) when the bundle is updated? It seems a little confusing. Thank you very much for the clarification, I will do some more experimentation keeping in mind what we discussed. On 02/04/12 19:25, Richard S. Hall wrote: Yes, you are using the same path when you try to install the first bundle the second time and this will not work since that path is used as a unique key, which is why it returns the same bundle id as printed in your session since it did not install anything the second time. As I suggest you need to have two different paths. However, this isn't an issue for OBR since it uses an arbitrary location string, so it is always unique when it does an install, which you can't easily do from the shell, like I said before. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org -- Sent from my phone, excuse my brevity.
