OK, I guess I figured out what my issue is/was. I thought the default values were returned if a specified property doesn’t exist in the .cfg file OR if the property does exist but doesn’t have a value. Experimentation shows me that the latter isn’t true.
I assume this is proper behavior. From: Leschke, Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:50 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: configuration property types and enums OK, I decided that for the time being at least, I could provide defaults for the problematic annotation methods. I still receive the IllegalArgumentException I mentioned previously even though I made the following change. @ObjectClassDefinition(name = "BAM Query Metric Provider Configuration") @interface QueryProviderConfig { String system(); String path(); int frequency() default 60; Status status() default Status.Requested; boolean postable() default false; RuleType ruleType() default RuleType.Custom; String ruleDef() default ""; ProviderType providerType(); String dataSource(); String queryFile(); String[] queryMods() default {}; String nameColumn() default ""; String valueColumn(); ValueColumnType valueColumnType() default ValueColumnType.INT; } There’s a bit of context that I left out last time though as I didn’t feel it was important but perhaps it is. There another config type that contains a subset of the above which is used to set values in a base class. To convert to that type I use and anonymous interface as shown below. @ObjectClassDefinition(name = "BAM Metric Provider Configuration") public @interface MetricProviderConfig { String path() default ""; int frequency() default 60; Status status() default Status.Requested; boolean postable() default false; RuleType ruleType() default RuleType.Custom; String ruleDef() default ""; } protected MetricProviderConfig toMPC(final QueryProviderConfig cfg) throws Exception { return new MetricProviderConfig() { public Class<? extends Annotation> annotationType() { return MetricProviderConfig.class; } public String path() { return cfg.path(); } public int frequency() { return cfg.frequency(); } public Status status() { return cfg.status(); } public boolean postable() { return cfg.postable(); } public RuleType ruleType() { 270: return cfg.ruleType(); // Exception thrown here } public String ruleDef() { return cfg.ruleDef(); } }; } The moderately interesting part of the traceback is as follows: org.osgi.service.component.ComponentException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No enum constant com.medline.bam.model.rule.IRule.RuleType. at org.apache.felix.scr.impl.inject.Annotations$Handler.invoke(Annotations.java:243) at com.medline.bam.model.metric.provider.$Proxy28.ruleType(Unknown Source) at com.medline.bam.model.metric.provider.QueryProvider$1.ruleType(QueryProvider.java:270) at com.medline.bam.model.metric.AbstractMetricProvider.update(AbstractMetricProvider.java:285) at com.medline.bam.model.metric.provider.AbstractQueryProvider.update(AbstractQueryProvider.java:241) at com.medline.bam.model.metric.provider.QueryProvider.activate(QueryProvider.java:288) Here’s the activate method in QueryProvider. An instance of MetricProviderConfig is passed into the object (not a component) that provides most of the concrete implementation of the QueryProvider component. The config is passed up to AbstractMetricProvider.update where cfg.ruleType() is invoked, which causes the method in the anonymous interface to be invoked which causes the exception. @Activate protected void activate(QueryProviderConfig cfg) throws Exception { ISystem system = Utils.getSystem(systems, cfg.system()); if (system != null) { setImpl(system, cfg); 288: getImpl().update(toMPC(cfg)); } this.config = cfg; } The update method from AbstractMetricProvider: protected void update(MetricProviderConfig cfg) throws Exception { this.status = cfg.status(); this.postable = cfg.postable(); String[] ruleDef = (isBlank(cfg.ruleDef()) ? null : cfg.ruleDef().split(",")); 285: switch (cfg.ruleType()) { Since cfg.ruleType() has a default, I would expect this to work but clearly it’s not. It works fine as long as long as ruleType has an explicit value in the .cfg file. The use of a default (in this context) seems to be the issue. Is the use of the anonymous interface causing me problems perhaps? I wasn’t sure how to make the conversion between types so I found that suggestion online. I apologize for dumping all this out here but I’m kind of at a loss at this point and I figured it was probably best to give as much context as might be needed. Regards, Scott From: Leschke, Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 10:31 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: configuration property types and enums Thanks for the info. My experience / knowledge of annotation interfaces is limited to say the least so that clears things up nicely. I’ll take a look at the Felix extension per your recommendation. Thanks so much. Scott From: David Jencks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:37 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: configuration property types and enums OK, that’s pretty straightforward. Annotations (@interface) can not return null values from their members. This is a java language thing, not a DS thing. You need to assure either that your configuration has an appropriate value or specify a default in the annotation. You only get notified of the problem when you try to access the member. Alternatively, you can use a felix extension allowing you to configure with an interface, in which case null returns are allowed. You could define your defaults directly in the @Component annotation property member. To do this investigate the DSExt annotations in the org.apache.felix.scr.ext.anno bundle. You’d use @DSExt.ConfigureWithInterfaces. Hope this helps david jencks On Sep 6, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Leschke, Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yes, this is a DS component. @Component( configurationPid = "medline.bam.metric.provider.query", configurationPolicy = ConfigurationPolicy.REQUIRE, immediate = true ) @Designate(ocd = QueryProviderConfig.class) public class QueryProvider Configuration Property Type: Name per http://njbartlett.name/2015/08/17/osgir6-declarative-services.html The CFP is the following: @ObjectClassDefinition(name = "BAM Query Metric Provider Configuration") @interface QueryProviderConfig { String system(); String path(); int frequency() default 60; Status status() default Status.Requested; boolean postable() default false; RuleType ruleType(); String ruleDef() default ""; ProviderType providerType(); String dataSource(); String queryFile(); String[] queryMods() default {}; String nameColumn() default ""; String valueColumn(); ValueColumnType valueColumnType() default ValueColumnType.INT; } The exception occurs within the Activator when the method ruleType() of the CFP is invoked. I hesitate to post the code as it’s a bit more complicated but that’s the upshot. My gut is telling me that since RuleType is an enum, it can’t be null, although that make sense in this case. I can test it of course, by adding “None” to the RuleType enum and setting the default to that but I’d prefer not to unless that’s the expected approach. From: David Jencks [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 2:48 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: configuration property types and enums I have some guesses about what you might be talking about but it doesn’t all make sense yet.This is a DS component, right? Could you be a lot more specific, showing at least the activate method signature, whatever you mean by configuration property type, the enum, and the stack trace? If you’ve used any extra annotations on the component please show them too. thanks david jencks On Sep 6, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Leschke, Scott <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I’m getting the following exception from an activate method. org.osgi.service.component.ComponentException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No enum constant (Enumeration type name). The activate method takes a Configuration Property Type that has a method that returns a value of the type but does NOT have a default defined. The activate method checks to see the method returns null. This is what I want but it seems like it’s demanding that the Enum be non-null. Am I reading this correctly? Must CFPs that return enums always return a valid value for the type? Scott
