Hi JB, I've found a VersionCleaner class in org.apache.felix.utils.version, which is being used in Karaf. But as far as I can see, this class doesn't 'clean' leading zeroes.
I did see however that the method readNumber() in org.apache.karaf.util.json.JsonReader seems to skip the leading zero. This results in a 'wrong' version number in the list of installedFeatures in org.apache.karaf.features.internal.service.State I'm assuming that's the reason why my feature does not get installed. Kind regards, Steven On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 6:40 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > Don’t get me wrong: it’s in the feature/osgi version parser (powered by > Felix utils), not in the spec. > > http://docs.osgi.org/javadoc/r4v41/org/osgi/framework/Version.html > > The spec allows leading 0, however, I think that the Felix Util version > parser removes it. > > Let me check in Felix. > > Regards > JB > > Le 23 mai 2021 à 19:47, Steven Huypens <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > Hi JB, > > Thanks for your response. I guess we'll have to change our versioning > scheme then. Do you have a reference to the OSGi spec stating leading > zeroes are not allowed ? I might have to convince some people ;-) > > Also, it would be convenient to have at least a WARN in the logging about > this, it took us quite some time to figure out what we were doing wrong. > I'd be happy to create a PR if that would help, but you will have to point > me to the code where this has to be changed. > > Best regards, > Steven > > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 5:11 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Steven, >> >> I would consider as "works as designed" ;) >> >> The OSGi version parser expects "flat" versioning. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> > Le 23 mai 2021 à 11:06, Steven Huypens <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > When using a bootFeature with a leading zero in the version number (eg. >> 1.01.1-SNAPSHOT), the feature gets state UNINSTALLED after starting Karaf. >> All my bundles are OK, it's only the state of the feature that seems wrong. >> When I remove the leading zero (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT), the feature gets state >> STARTED, as expected. >> > >> > Should I consider this a bug or is there a specification telling us not >> to use leading zeroes for version numbers ? >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Steven >> >> >
